Okay then there is something I'm not understanding about BitD. How does one arrive at results of broken or damaged weapons, sucking chest wounds, minor scratches, and many other interesting and "realistic" outcomes of a fight with deadly weapons?Agree BitD is more realistic? Nope. It doesn't have to do any of the above -- it's just possible to do without adding any new mechanics.
There's a dufference between process and resultant fictions. "Realism," to me, can only be judged at the fiction, not the process. However, all of your arguments so far about adding "realism" have been about adding additional processes. I'm pointing out that process is not required for "realism."
Is it not more internally consistent, more coherent, more believable that negative consequences can/may arise in weapons and armour damage particularly when in use?I don't know what "realism" means in En5ider ad copy, because, as this thread shows, it's highly situational. En5ider also seems to favor 'new processes' to increase randomly applied negative consequences (in the specific case weapon and armor damage?). I do not agree this necessarily fits my definition of "realism" although it appears to fit yours. Hence the argument.