Topic: Game focus: characters or world simulation?

[giulio.trimarco]

The solution to story is fate points... I don't know.
Fate points, to me, are used when you want to change a catastrophic event in a near-catastrophic one.
Read Deat<->Near Death.

You like it, you name it.

Whips,

again, using a brawling critical will read that I take a table, or mug, or whatever and smash it on my opponent, etc  .
This, to me, mean "not in control". Whatever the action you are "blocked" by another inappropriate table.

[pastaav]

I don't understand the whip issue...if someone want to torment a prisoner I make them do a static maneuver. If he fumbles there is a risk he killed the victim. It is very much the same as you don't use the attack table if the victim is bound and you want to execute them. The very idea to use a combat table that model two free moving characters who fight to kill each other to represent a torture or execution situation is insane. Also there is always the option to limit yourself to A-criticals if one of the participants want not to kill the opponent...

Anyway there is much talk here about the interaction between GMs and players and who has the authority to decide what happens. My comment is that there is brilliant material about these issues in Gamemaster Law. People are different and people might be great roleplayers without being good GMs.

In some groups it is a good idea to give players a very free role in coming up with solutions to problems. If the player need a certain object or fact to make a cool scene he just insert it into the narrative. For other groups it is better if the players ask the GMs about facts and react on the input given to give everyone a fair equal chance.

The point is that the balance between who decide story elements is very much a issue between players and GM. There are some games out there that tries to hardwire a certain balance between players and GM into the rule engine. RM is not one of those but instead give input about how to deal with the issue in books like Gamemaster Law and Nightmares of Mine but keep it out of the core rules. The RM fans are people in general that are happy with that choice and I very much doubt this crowd would stay if RM was changed to force a certain balance into the rules engine instead of leaving it up to the player group like today.

[GrumpyOldFart]

The point is that the balance between who decide story elements is very much a issue between players and GM. There are some games out there that tries to hardwire a certain balance between players and GM into the rule engine. RM is not one of those but instead give input about how to deal with the issue in books like Gamemaster Law and Nightmares of Mine but keep it out of the core rules. The RM fans are people in general that are happy with that choice and I very much doubt this crowd would stay if RM was changed to force a certain balance into the rules engine instead of leaving it up to the player group like today.

Exactly. Make provision for it to be allowable for players and GM to get together and conspire to change the direction of the plot, but don't hardwire it in. Always remember that the power balance between this group of players and this GM may be perfect, but the exact same balance for precisely the same reasons may be absolutely 100% wrong for a different group, or even the same group on a different day.

Also, just for the record, yeah the mere existence of GM Law puts ICE ahead of the curve in addressing these kinds of problems. So far as I know, there isn't another RPG company that has done anything similar.

[naphta23]

Giulio, I guess I finally got the idea of the whip-issue. You are right, if we would use the normal attack table, there is the problem of either killing the prisoner or oneself accidently - both not absolutely impossible, but still the odds are relatively high and unsatisfying.
Thus, there should - as already mentioned - a skill called "torturing" and the roll should be a maneuver, not an attack. Or another attack chart is needed. But the question is, is a new table with fixed results and descriptions a proper solution? Is it necessary to write a whole new and ever-expanding book with new charts? Just in case your players want, for example, to torture a prisoner?

Well, the gamemaster could think of a proper solution, perhaps it could be handled via a skill check on "interrogation" or something similar. But it is not a solution included within the game system, but a blank space on the map some players or gamemasters have to draw out.

Another option is a website with monthly articles, just like the Guild Companion, to fix problems that are discovered by players.

But still, in the end it is just like fixing a ship full of holes (always repairing the biggest hole currently threatening the crew), not building a waterproof one.

Did I finally understand the issue? 

*edit*
PS: on the other hand I regard the Rolemaster system as a set of rules detailled enough so a gamemaster and player can get the idea, how it works. Sure, there are holes in the rules and there are missing parts, but as soon as one has a problem, one can come up with a consistent alternative to handle the issue, since the system itself is understood. If not, there is the Guild Companion and there are several forums where most problems can be solved.
That is just my point of view - do not get me wrong, I do not have a big problem with Rolemaster, except that not many people like that game and I would love more people to enjoy the game. That would be an enrichment for the roleplaying world, for ICE and finally even for me.

PPS: for the Fate Points - I use them and I like them. Mind you, they do not necessarily prevent death, a player re-rolls the critical hit and still can die. That is perfectly well with me, since I want every combat to be a threat. If a combat is not a threat and there is no doubt to the outcome, it is just a waste of time, stealing the group's time and bringing a story to a sudden halt.
If there is the threat of death lingering around every combat, the players, their characters and even the non-player characters think at least twice if a combat is necessary. And I think that this leads to another perception of the in-game world for the players, they stop regarding every non-human as a bunch of experience points walking around. That, at least, is the experience I made with this system. Take (A)D&D for example: it is quite unlikely that your 3^rd-level fighter is wondering if there could be an alternative to slaughter that single 1^st-level goblin. Most players will not hesitate to earn those experience points, I guess. And that is the point why I dislike that system, because it concentrates too much on the player characters to be heroes who have nothing to fear, if it does not have an appropriate Challenge Rating (or whatever it is called).

[markc]

Arioch,
 I am glad that I could help break the language problem.

 Your comment is one that I have seen quite often expressed about some RPG's. I can say that when switching RPG's you often have to modify your playing style to the game. Also even more important is the GM has to adjust his adventure or story to fit the new system. And with any chance there is a bit of a learning cure on both the players and GM part.
 I tend to tell players that a RM PC is about a 1/2 to 1/3 level PC in D&D 2,3 or 3.5 so act accordingly. Now the MtA game I play in a starting PC is about a 10th level RM PC. That is a huge difference and it has to get used to. Also the game mechanics are different in RM vs other systems. RM is a lot more deadly. So maybe in another system you charge head long into combat and in RM you have to wait maybe a level or two more before you can do this.
 As I said above and is said in GM law there are many types of players and they can enjoy only one type of game. IE combat, drama, puzzle solving. If a new game does not have that they do not have fun. Another point here is the advent of online RPG's IMO have changed the power structure of most games. IMO you could say it is power creep. And people get used to that and expect than when they start a new game.

 Have to go.
MDC   

[Arioch]

As I said above and is said in GM law there are many types of players and they can enjoy only one type of game. IE combat, drama, puzzle solving. If a new game does not have that they do not have fun. Another point here is the advent of online RPG's IMO have changed the power structure of most games. IMO you could say it is power creep. And people get used to that and expect than when they start a new game.

 Have to go.
MDC   

I don't think it's only an issue of power creep, imho it's a matter of premises: the game makes you spend quite a lot of effort into creating a very detailed character, but then that character can be scrapped just by one unlucky roll and you have to rely solely on you GM to bring into play many of your character's details....

In fact another solution to the problem imho could be making character creation much quicker and more streamlined.

[markc]

Arioch,
 Yes you can seed up PC creation but IMO you lose the detail. So which do you pick for your game, detail and attachment or quick creation and eventual attachment. In 30 years or RPG playing I have not seen a system like that. Boy 30 years sounds like a long time.
  I think the GM can help this with some pre-generated PC's or having some NPC's for a player to play. Or in one of our games the dead player helped out the GM and rolled for and maneuvered the monsters for the GM. He was very excited and a little shocked when after quite a few rounds of battle he knocked out the main fighter do to hits. Now the fighter had a high negative hits total so he did not die but he quickly said how sorry he was for it after the game.

 Talking a about crazy game system stuff. I played in a game that was very story drive and rules light. We had a high level NPC in plate mail jump off a 30'-40' building  so as to land on a player. It was funny at the time because as I said above a player to be was running the NPC. The NPC landed on the player doing quite a bit of damage and knocking him out. So the NPC runs back to the top of the tower because the battle is still going on. As he gets to the top most of the PC's teleport to another tower. The players to be NPC sees another of our PC's below him. The NPC has only a few hits left and jumps and tries to hit the PC. The NPC hits the PC and almost knocks him out. And the NPC in plate mail makes his save and takes very little damage and is ready to knock another PC out. My PC hits him with a spell and he finally dies. But as you can see story heavy and rules light can cause a huge problem. But again we all had a good laugh at it after words.   
MDC

[rdanhenry]

Giulio, I guess I finally got the idea of the whip-issue. You are right, if we would use the normal attack table, there is the problem of either killing the prisoner or oneself accidently - both not absolutely impossible, but still the odds are relatively high and unsatisfying.
Thus, there should - as already mentioned - a skill called "torturing" and the roll should be a maneuver, not an attack. Or another attack chart is needed. But the question is, is a new table with fixed results and descriptions a proper solution? Is it necessary to write a whole new and ever-expanding book with new charts? Just in case your players want, for example, to torture a prisoner?

Well, the gamemaster could think of a proper solution, perhaps it could be handled via a skill check on "interrogation" or something similar. But it is not a solution included within the game system, but a blank space on the map some players or gamemasters have to draw out.

If you attack a prisoner with a combat whip, which is what the Whip combat table represents, then, yes, death or serious injury should be a likely thing. However, if you are using the Whip attack chart to handle a lashing, which involves a very different use of a different tool, you are trying to drive nails with a screwdriver and the complaint resolves into "Rolemaster cannot stop people from doing misguided things." No rules system can do that.

As for having a mechanic in place to deal with physical discomforture:

"Interrogation
     This skill provides a bonus for extracting information from an intelligent source. This may or may not include causing discomfort to the target. However, if a target is discomforted and the 'interrogation roll' fails, the target may suffer a major injury or death. In such a case, the target should roll an RR vs. level 10, using Co/SD/Co as a modifier to determine the extent of the injury. This skill not only applies to torture but also includes the ability to piece together scattered fragments of information received."
-- RMSR, p. 170

[Arioch]

Arioch,
 Yes you can seed up PC creation but IMO you lose the detail. So which do you pick for your game, detail and attachment or quick creation and eventual attachment.

Yes, in fact I would prefer to have a way of reducing the impact of randomness on play, rather that giving up the detail il chara creation. 
Just to be clear: I've said reduce NOT remove!

[Winterknight]

I once played a game of Clue: Master Detective with a group of friends.  A board game, with a logical bent, and the only random factor is rolling the dice to see how quickly you can traverse the hallway between rooms.  This is a game that's clearly designed to eliminate random wins, and reward players for logic and perseverance.

On my first turn, the second roll of the dice in the game, I entered a room, and speculated the solution about 3 cards I did not possess, simply to gather information.  No one could provide me with a clue.  I then declared my initial speculation to be the solution, and the game was over.  3 of the 5 players hadn't had a chance to roll the dice.

Now, there's about 1600 different possible solutions for the game, IIRC, and even if we factor out the known bits of information I had, that at most rules out another 6 or so.  In other words, I had the equivalent of 1 rank in the skill, and I open-ended twice to get the solution.   A bunny rabbit slew a troll with an A critical on the tiny bite attack table.

Does this kind of random luck happen often?  Of course not.  But it does happen, real-world, and game world.

Some of the most incredible moments in my gaming memory are not the planned and staged events that proceeded along probable paths, but the ones that were one-in-a-million longshots.   They were players taking the system, and warping it to meet their own ends, but still existing within a framework that made sense.  Or, they were victims of chance, who made the best of it. 

Yes, I agree that if you have established a campaign with a world-affecting impact, and the players are crucial to that outcome, it might suck to lose a character.  However, there are nuances to every social contract that can't be defined by the rules of the game.  Whether you use fate points to fudge outcomes, or GM's Privelege, or some transparent Deus ex Machina, or player influence (I don't want to die, so I should have a say), you are negotiating a point where you alter the probable outcome.

And why not?  If that is what works for your group, presenting these types of tips as options is a fine solution.  If that's what your group wants.

It is equally valid for a GM and his players to want a cold, hard world, where the crush of time rolls on regardless of the players.  Players may have an impact on the short term, and may influence the patterns to a limited extent, but there is no guarantee of survival, and no punches pulled.  A death is a death, and it may be pointless or noble, as the situation demands. 

But even in a situation where minimal randomization occurs, randomness happens.  And, counting on that randomization, more often than not, leads to discovering the flat part of the probability curve, and long protracted resolutions.

I personally feel that the greatest disservice the GNS theory does is that it leads some folks to believe that there is a magic blend of system and play style that will solve all their gaming problems.  There are a lot of ideas that sound fine on paper, but the minute you introduce humans into the mix, it all goes to heck. 

You might find a great group of folks, where a very free-form set of rules and player sharing works great.  But, you may also have that one guy in the group who wants to be the center of attention.  No matter what game you play, he wants to dominate.  His characters are bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, more powerful, whatever.  Those people can absolutely ruin a free form game, but a somewhat more structured system can actually be GOOD for that kind of player.  He has to operate within a certain set of restrictions that make him tolerable to the rest of the group.  He may even be highly enjoyable in those situations, as long as he isn't given the freedom to do whatever he wants.

Then put 3 of those guys into the same group, along with 2 wall flowers, and 2 average gamers.  In my experience, RM worked very well with the group, and looser games didn't fare as well. 

Cheating happens, get over it.  GM's and players fudge, whether from plot twists or die tipping.  No set of rules can comprehensively cover every potential situation that players and GM's can dream up, and to ask it of them is unrealistic.  You can have rules that are so open that almost nothing is defined, but that's a whole different set of issues. 

As for me, I think that RM does a better job than most of presenting a great tool for dealing with the "What if" situations - the static and moving maneuver tables.  Those are general enough, and broad enough to cover an awful lot of ground. 

If I had a player who was torturing a bound victim with a whip, I'd handle it with that table instead.  Okay, you have whip skill, I assume you know what it's capable of.  I'll call this a Hard maneuver, add your whip skill to the roll.  The result is the % information you extract.  Or, it's the reliability of the information.  Let's say you got a result of 50 on the manuever table, he might have answered all your questions, but left out half the details that would really have helped. 

No need to roll on the attack table, to see if you accidentally killed him.  Although, I might make him make a RR to see if he goes into shock, or even dies from the abuse, based on how well you rolled.  But again, that's life.

And to the one comment:
RM has only one outcome: Death

I say:
Life has only one outcome: Death.  But there's a lot of fun to be had before that happens.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Exactly. The possible range of what players and GMs want out of an RPG is simply too broad for any one system to answer it all. This very forum is "Exhibit A" for the argument that people who houserule this or that situation far outnumber those who play RM as-is with no modification. While I can't prove it, I personally suspect this to be true for all RPGs.
Therefore I stand by what I said earlier: A robust RPG system is one that is easy to modify, but hard to break.

[naphta23]

Winterknight? 

[Arioch]

Winterknight, sorry but I cannot agree with some of your points:

Now, there's about 1600 different possible solutions for the game, IIRC, and even if we factor out the known bits of information I had, that at most rules out another 6 or so.  In other words, I had the equivalent of 1 rank in the skill, and I open-ended twice to get the solution.   A bunny rabbit slew a troll with an A critical on the tiny bite attack table.

Yeah, ok but again, I'm NOT saying that we should completely remove randomness from the game!
And that's because: Randomness = risk = fun.

What I'm saying is that we should move this element of risk from "uninteresting" parts of the game to more interesting ones.
We should ask ourselves: "why do players and GMs cheat?"
And the answer IMHO is: to avoid boring/uninteresting situations in their game.
In other words you spend a Fate Point in that combat against a orc because you think that the death of your character in that situation would be boring.
Is it possible to build a set of rules that will help players and GMs to avoid boring situations and stress interesting ones without having to cheat?
IMHO yes... not only it is desirable to do it as games should be fun!

I personally feel that the greatest disservice the GNS theory does is that it leads some folks to believe that there is a magic blend of system and play style that will solve all their gaming problems.  There are a lot of ideas that sound fine on paper, but the minute you introduce humans into the mix, it all goes to heck.

Look, I don't know very much about GNS theory (and, quite frankly, while I find fascinating that someone is trying to study rpgs in a "scientific" way, I find most of those articles  boring  ), but from what I've understood it says quite the contrary: that every group of players have its own playing style...

[markc]

Arioch,
 You should have seen some of the articls I had to read for Bio-Chem Genetics. In fact I probably should try and find what I did with them, keep them by my bed ready to pull out when I can not sleep.

MDC

Edit,
 IMO when there is a lot of money on the line you can bet there will be people studing it.
MDC

[RandalThor]

I will respond to this without having read the next 2 PAGES of thread (boy you all have been some prolific little buggers, haven't you?!?  ), because I can't just yet.

It seemed to me that these problems could all possibly the same share the source. So I'm trying to understand if we could solve all of them at once by adjusting the scope of RM as a game system a little...

Problem Source: People being imperfect cannot create the perfect machine (or whatever). So do your best, but eventually you need to stop working on it and just do it. (Read For RPGs: Stop writing rules and play the game.)

Solve all: No way. Impossible task with the current humananity situations (see previous statement). Just do your best prior to the game, and then roll with the punches while playing. Or don't and let the dice & imperfect rules rule all!


PS: Arioch, that's sorta how my mind works - someonde will say something and I will go somewhere else with it, though their is a tentative link.

[Arioch]

Randal, the fact that we cannot create the perfect game due to our imperfect nature should not stop us from trying to improve what we have, maybe the result will not be perfect, but it could be better.

[markc]

 IMO the perfect game is different for every GM and player.

MDC

[RandalThor]

Randal, the fact that we cannot create the perfect game due to our imperfect nature should not stop us from trying to improve what we have, maybe the result will not be perfect, but it could be better.

And I am all for making things better, but I also realize that when I sit down to game that the game isn't perfect and that I will likely be having to make adjustments on the fly. Even if I/you/anyone makes a rule that works for 95% of the situations it is made for, it doesn't mean that when we find ourselves in that 5% situation we are just hosed and "too bad" it's not in the book.

I just get the impression that you, Arioch, want the perfect game so you don't have to make any in-game decisions or rulings, and I just don't see that happening. Make a good rule, heck make a great rule, but understand that, when you sit down, it will not work for every situation or person so you will likely have to add-lib - or just suffer the bad situation because you can't make yourself do something that a book doesn't tell you to do.

A bunny rabbit slew a troll with an A critical on the tiny bite attack table.

This situation is actually - at least as far as I am concerned - not the problem, and I dare say, neither for Arioch. I agree that these occurances can be some of the most memorable in any game, for a multitude of reasons. It is when the just above average results end up in that category, or when you have the trend of 4 out of 5 PCs dying in the not-even-close-to-heroic-ways that you have a problem with the basic mechanic of a game that needs to be looked at (or you are just not in the right group  )

Cheating happens, get over it.  GM's and players fudge, whether from plot twists or die tipping.  No set of rules can comprehensively cover every potential situation that players and GM's can dream up, and to ask it of them is unrealistic.  You can have rules that are so open that almost nothing is defined, but that's a whole different set of issues. 

I concure completely. (No surprise there, huh?!?  ) And why I like the two rules in the DMs Guide for 7th Sea:

Rule 1) There are no rules.

Rule 2) Cheat anyway.

I have to say, Arioch, your mentioning of a more "cooperative-storytelling" game has my gamer juices running (sorry for the disgusting image - my bad  )! I think that I will ask my friend what game/story he has been thinking about running - and take it over. That way, I know for sure that it is something that he likes and can get into. Of course, it has to be something that I am interested in as well, even if it wasn't my first choice or exactly what I would do. Hopefully, someone will do that for me - and others.....

[Winterknight]

Winterknight, sorry but I cannot agree with some of your points:

It would be a dull and quiet world, let alone forum, if we all agreed with one another.   

What I'm saying is that we should move this element of risk from "uninteresting" parts of the game to more interesting ones.
We should ask ourselves: "why do players and GMs cheat?"
And the answer IMHO is: to avoid boring/uninteresting situations in their game.

Here's my opportunity to disagree with you.  I think people cheat, fudge, tweak for as many reasons as there are for gaming. 

Why do poker players cheat, even when money isn't at risk?  Why does my uncle stack the deck in a friendly game of cribbage, even though he rarely benefits from it?  Is it to feel an adrenaline rush?  To win at all costs?  To get something over on another person?  It's rarely, IMHO, because the situation would otherwise be boring.

In other words you spend a Fate Point in that combat against a orc because you think that the death of your character in that situation would be boring.

Or, because you don't want to spend an hour making a new one.  Or, because you're deeply attached to the character.  Or any number of reasons.

I once had a player commit suicide (I did not require a roll) because he had blundered into a trap and his foot was cut off.  Despite the fact that the world was fairly magic rich, and prosthetics were abundant, and with the party's healer, he would have been back to nearly fit form almost immediately.  No, in his opinion, I had destroyed what had been the "closest thing to a perfect character" he'd ever had. 

Many people have complex relationships with their characters, even the guys you think wouldn't.  It's easy to see why they'd be loathe to lose the character, as an investment of psyche.  In the above case, the player couldn't even stand to have his character marred, and would RATHER lose him that see him flawed.  As I said, complex.

Is it possible to build a set of rules that will help players and GMs to avoid boring situations and stress interesting ones without having to cheat?
IMHO yes... not only it is desirable to do it as games should be fun!

Second part first.  Absolutely.  Games should be fun.   Sometimes they aren't.  I can play Guitar Hero with my wife, and it's a great time.  We help each other out, compliment one another, and enjoy the music.  When I play with my sixteen-year-old son, I can't take more than 15-20 minutes of it.  It's not that he pwns me (I'm old, fat, and slow- he should), its that he gloats, dances around, rubs my nose in it.  Same game, the only changed variable is the player mix of personality.

I've played RM with groups of players that were absolutely fantastic.  I've played with groups that stunk.  I've played where the change of a single player made all the difference.  I've also played about 20 other game systems over the years, and about 3 times that number of board and card games.  Yes, some of the systems stink, whether from poorly worded rules to lackluster mechanics.  But overwhelmingly, the majority of the truly unenjoyable moments come from the human characteristics, and have nothing to do with the game.

As to whether you can build a cheat-proof set of rules, well, I have to say that I don't think it can be done.  I don't know that it should be done.  I think it overlooks the more basic issue: the player-GM covenant, and the degree of trust associated with it.

In my opinion, a rules-light story-sharing structure turns over a certain degree of control to the players.  This might be great if you have players who all care equally about the story, and about one another.  If, however, you have an individual who wants to be (and is capable of being) the center or attention, that person can make the game boring or uncomfortable for everyone else.  If you have a group that enjoys that kind of sparring, then it's a wonderful experience.  If not...not so much.

When you negotiate what you do, in a narrative fashion, you alter the outcome.  When I change a 99 critical roll to a 33, I alter the outcome.  I consider both to be equally valid, and neither is wrong.

My campaigns tend to be role-played novels.  Not the written works of others, but a novel-sized adventure that builds from the shared stories of all the characters.  A few die along the way, but their deaths are rarely futile.  How a character faces death can be much more important that where or how he finds his end.  A death in a bar room brawl, particularly one precipitated by the player, can be as significant as a leap from the highest tower to land a killing blow on a demon with an enchanted sword.

You'll hear me say things like "Make a bribe-the-guard-without-getting-caught-by-his-supervisor roll."  Or "Make a crawl-through-the-bushes-under-her-window-silently roll."  If it's not important, it usually doesn't get a roll.  If it is important, the players know what is at stake, and may themselves suggest alterations.
"Hey, I  should get a +20 to that bribe-the-guard roll, because I spent yesterday afternoon playing dice with him in the tavern."  
"Yes, and you won...poorly.  I'll give you a +10, no more."

These kinds of negotiations and interactions are developed because the players know and trust the GM, and because the parties involved are imaginative.  Can this work just as well in another game system?  Certainly.  Will another game system DESIGNED to have this kind of interaction ENSURE this kind of interaction?  No way.  Unless the players know and trust one another, no system will force them to take a more controlling role.  If they do have that level of trust and imagination, Rolemaster can (IMO) fulfill those needs as well as any system, and better than most.

[Arioch]

Why do poker players cheat, even when money isn't at risk?  Why does my uncle stack the deck in a friendly game of cribbage, even though he rarely benefits from it?  Is it to feel an adrenaline rush?  To win at all costs?  To get something over on another person?  It's rarely, IMHO, because the situation would otherwise be boring.

You forget "uninteresting" 
The immediate reason because they all cheat may be different but, in the end, they all cheat for the same reason: because they think that otherwise the game would be less interesting, less fun... in other words boring.

Or, because you don't want to spend an hour making a new one.  Or, because you're deeply attached to the character.

spend hours in making new character = boring task that I want to avoid
I'm attached to this character = I think it would be more interesting to continue playing with it rather than let him die.

I've played RM with groups of players that were absolutely fantastic.  I've played with groups that stunk.

Yes, I completely agree! I think I've already said that before but: the people you're playing with are really important! Every group is different and will the most important thing is probably the trust between the group members (not only trust in the GM but also in your fellow players, as it takes just one of them, be him the GM or not to waste everybody's fun)...

Will another game system DESIGNED to have this kind of interaction ENSURE this kind of interaction?

Ensure? Obviously not. Help this kind of interactions? Yes.

Probably it's better if I make one thing clearer: the point of this topic is NOT that rolemaster is a bad system and that it's not fun!
The point is: would it be more fun if we gave the players a little more control on the events affecting their characters?
IMHO yes, as it will help solving the problems I've already mentioned...

Will it work for anyone?
No! There're lots of people who like RM as it is and don't see any problem in it!