Someone mentioned it earlier, it might have been Bedrockgames, where D&D needs to be able to appeal to a wider market, so for those:
1. Wanting to track coin, rations, ammunition, light sources and the like, it is possible;
2. Wanting to have a detailed system regarding carrying capacity/encumbrance, it is possible;
3. Wanting to have a low-magic game, it is possible;
4. Wanting to experience a high-powered wuxia game, it is possible;
5. Wanting to experience a greater degree of co-authoring, it is possible (use the plot point device);
...etc
It may not be the best at any one of those, but D&D is such that it encourages customisation and add-ons so with some creativity one is able to homebrew or borrow ideas from other games. That is one of its appealing qualities.
For me the realism debate, is a non-issue. If a mechanic appeals to me, it becomes another tool to use at the table.
For instance, I like encumbrance and when it is necessary for the fiction I might ask for a rough estimate of carrying capacity for each player, otherwise for ease (and since we have done some measuring in the past), most adventurers with their gear are encumbered. The rule at our table everyone's movement is affected as if encumbered, but during a combat, 5e allows one as a free action to drop something. So that free action is used (in the first round of combat) for one to drop their gear pack, freeing a PC to move their full complement of movement unhindered and again that is only if I break out the grid.
In ToM that doesn't even enter play. And we do a lot of ToM. Should a player want to declare their character is not encumbered then they need to keep track and update where necessary. This rules seems to work for our table.
Is it
more real to keep 100% track of encumbrance? I don't believe so.
Does it require more bookkeeping to measure encumbrance continuously? Of course yes.
Does the above solution I use take into account the effects of encumbrance sufficiently enough for my table? Yes.
For coin, time, inspiration and rests - I keep track of it on our shared online page. We use the average daily spend as listed in the PHB. Using the average spend means, meals, drinks, replacement/mending of clothes, maintenance of weapons/armour, purchasing of medi-kits, ammunition, light sources, paying for stabling, board and the like are all taken care of. So when adventuring characters are always at maximum in terms of medikits and ammunition (unless it becomes important to track, like for an extended time away from possible supplies).
Would it be
more real to keep track of these more accurately? I do not think so.
Would it require more bookkeeping? For sure.
Does the average daily spend sufficiently cover our table's conception of general adventuring costs? Yes
Whether one keeps an accurate record/s or one doesn't is not an indication of what is more real or not.
However having said that, I do agree realism can lie on a spectrum, so @
Lanefan's table which attempts to account for equipment being damaged due to AoE attacks and environment damage (water, falling)...etc does seem to lean to towards
a sounder internal consistency.
I might use/allow equipment to be damaged as a possible stake, bargaining chip or even damage replacement.
As an example: Player failed their roll for the character's attempt to leap onto beast's back. As DM I might offer
Success with Complication. They succeeded, using their masterwork shortsword to grip into the beast's flesh - and hanging on, but the blade broke from the shaft in the struggle. So they still succeeded, but now they have lost their masterwork weapon. The player is free to refuse the fiction offered and just accept the standard fail.
The above is certainly a real possibility for the fiction, but that might never happen in say @
Maxperson's game depending on the system and homebrew rules he may use. That does not mean his game is any less real than mine though.