There is a section of the video below (skip forward to about 4 minutes) which very clearly sets out what appears to be a very common view about game complexity and simulation vs. narrative. All flavours of RM including RMU are very firmly in the simulation camp in my opinion and it takes quite an effort on the part of the GM to rebalance the game to shift the emphasis towards narrative centric play..
The disconnect I have with what that video is saying is that I do not use maps like that. For me, maps are guides not detailed like he shows. Not that people don't, of course, it is just that I don't, even though I consider myself a simulationist style player. I feel that the combat round has to have some level of abstraction, which makes detailed movement like that impossible to do - it just doesn't make sense to me to have such detail, but then claim other parts as abstract.
Plus, I really don't like to
have a bunch of special stuff to play the game - it is enough needing the books, dice and the rest of the regular stuff. I will use props from time-to-time, but those are not needed, just to enhance the regular experience. (Stuff like images for people, places and things.)