Thomas Shey
Legend
All of the effects of a weapon are reflected in the roll. What difference does it make if you lose Health because of acid or fire or blood loss? You roll the attack and then describe what it looks like, same as any other attack.
It makes a big difference if the damage is ongoing, or works better against heavily armored or lightly armored ones. If you don't understand why that can be true, you're not going to understand why lightweight games are unsatisfying to some people.
Most rules don't provide for simulating humidity or the relation between salinity and depth of a large body of water. Should they? Why or why not?
Bluntly, this is a disingenuous comparison.
Btw, bleeding is only "non-trivial" if you decide it is for your game. That's a design decision, not an a priori truth. Whether and how much something matters in real life need not have any bearing whatever on what you decide is important in your game.
But at that point you're doing exactly what I said--discarding things that matter (and in both much fiction and reality, quite a lot) for simplicity.
Added after the fact : Since I asked you for an example, it's only fair that I provide one.
If I Alice rolls 6 successes for her attack, and Betty rolls 3 for her defense, Betty loses 3 Health. Those 3 points of damage contain all of the information about the attack and this is reflected in the narration. If Alice was using a sword, then that 3 damage represents the stab or slash along with any and all effects associated with it, such as damage to armor or clothing, laceration, bleeding, and whatever else the players come up with (it could also be the case that Betty is playing an evasive character, and narrates the defense as a close call instead).
But again, no they don't. They pave over most of it, making it essentially irrelevant.