This is right up there with whether you use spell components or not.  In your games, do you use Basic Encumbrance (where you can simply carry up to 15 times your Strength score in pounds, max), or do you use the Variant - and more detailed - version, where over 5 times your Strength score leads to a 10 foot speed penalty, and over 10 times (up to 15 times, the max) your Speed drops by 20 feet and you have disadvantage on ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws that use Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution.

Personally I’m undecided and looking for input.  I’ve decided to incorporate detailed Material Component usage (and tracking) into my own Campaign (not including components costing a gold or less, and including special components (tuning fork for Plane Shift)).  So now I’m wondering about this.  I’m still a ways from actually running the Campaign (since I’m making sure this one will have all the maps, story, and detailed quests to make for an amazing game) but it feels nice to plot ahead.

Regardless of the Encumbrance Rule you use, when do you feel it’s appropriate to make things like Handy Haversack’s, Bags of Holding, and Portable Holes available?  Certainly in the relative early levels I see myself encouraging Players to make use of Mounts, Wagons, and Homes / Apartments.  So when would it make sense to give them something like a Bag of Holding?  Where it matters, my game will start off in a sizable Duchy before graduating to a Planes Hopping storyline.  That would happen roughly around 8th level I’m currently figuring.

BTW, I’m voting ‘Basic’ as a starting point.  Not because I’m committed but mostly just to see the results.

To your last paragraph: Yes it does make sense. Inventory and Inventory management is always a bother, wouldn't start out with a bag of holding but a handy haversack is always quite... handy, instead of packmules or animal carts, making the players more agile and removing the "but we can't just leave them here!" drama from stage. ;) Also most players like the console/computer game or Mary Poppins like feeling of owning some of these. (At least the groups i've played with, we once even had a boot of holding.)

Quote from Varek_Cellarbrew >>

To your last paragraph: Yes it does make sense. Inventory and Inventory management is always a bother, wouldn't start out with a bag of holding but a handy haversack is always quite... handy, instead of packmules or animal carts, making the players more agile and removing the "but we can't just leave them here!" drama from stage. ;) Also most players like the console/computer game or Mary Poppins like feeling of owning some of these. (At least the groups i've played with, we once even had a boot of holding.)

 But doesn’t the increased capacity defeat the point of limited capacity, more so for those that prefer the Variant of course?  Certainly I enjoy games where I have a large capacity for carrying things, but we similarly have plenty (most, all?) of those same games where Spell Components just don’t exist.  And if most people enjoy the added complications associated with Spell Components, it would similarly make sense that people enjoy dealing with the lower encumbrance and thus having to assign what and when you might take something.  By example, you may have a Dungeon where - once it’s clear of threats - you can loot to your hearts content, taking multiple loads out to your horses, wagons, whatever.  For the case where you are entering and exiting a dungeon with threats left behind, you probably will have to enter with less equipment than you might prefer so you can carry out more.  And even then you will still need to prioritize items by weight and value.

Quote from Appellion >>

 But doesn’t the increased capacity defeat the point of limited capacity?  Certainly I enjoy games where I have a large capacity for carrying things, but we similarly have plenty (most, all?) of those same games where Spell Components just don’t exist.  And if most people enjoy the added complications associated with Spell Components, it would similarly make sense that dealing with the lower encumbrance and thus having to assign what and when you might take something.  By example, you may have a Dungeon where - once it’s clear of threats - you can loot to your hearts content, taking multiple loads out to your horses, wagons, whatever.  For the case where you are entering and exiting a dungeon with threats left behind, you probably will have to enter with less equipment than you might prefer so you can carry out more.  And even then you will still need to prioritize items by weight and value.  

That's totally up to you. If you and your group enjoy a more realistic/low magic/gritty setting where more resource management might also be important, totally makes sense. Maybe even beasts of burden are hard to come by or very expensive. What i wrote was just my take on the game or from my experience playing and DMming. (And even with that kind of item, carrying capacity is still finite, as long as not every character gets his own BoH or Portable Hole.) ^^

Edit: afaik most "cutscenes" like filling wagons with loot from a hoard will probably be handled with a few short & sweet sentences by most players, except when you throw more plot/complications at them while doing so.

So is there a particular level range for when you might reward the players with any one of those?  By example 3+ for the Haversack, 6 or 7 for a Bag of Holding, 10+ for a Portable Hole.  ?

Honestly, I've only ever even had players track encumbrance once, and it fizzled pretty quickly (to be clear, I don't think encumbrance had anything to do with that). Most of the time, we've only had a tiny party and so sought to cut the bureaucratic overhead and encumbrance was one of the first to go. I'm currently running a large party, but they all decided they didn't want to do it for now but will consider it once the party moves out into the glacier - which we're about to do, so I suppose I should run the poll again. 

It really depends on how hard you want to be, I guess. It's also one of those stealth taxes on Spellcasters and non strength builds - which might be part of balancing them out a bit. The variant rule would be even more punishing. 

So far hearing an interesting reversed opinion as opposed to Spell Components, kind of fascinating.

My take: Prior to level 4 it's ok to let them struggle a bit, as it still should feel rewarding to finally be able to buy (doesn't come cheap) such an item, or get it as a quest reward. BoH and PortaHole(TM) are mostly available via loottables. And i feel no shame in skipping (more of) them, if the Groups "inventory space" feels sufficient. ("No Cognac, you don't need to loot every piece of enemy armor you come across, just because you have two bags of holding!" I'd then rather give them a homebrewed silly, small extra - like the afore mentioned "Boot of Holding" with 2 cubic feet and 20 pound capacity, or the Hole in a Pocket.

Before I started considering a darker and grittier game (not so gritty that long rests take a week though!) I entertained the idea of bringing back the different categories of Bags of Holding, from 2nd Edition.  I can’t recall the weight limit for the Bag of Holding Type IV, but it was truly monstrous.

As a player I have never found a problem with the gritty realism of using encumbrance limits.
Its basically why pirates kept pirate maps.

As a character I have even gone as far as to hire "native" porters to carry stuff. In situations that require it. Otherwise I use horses, ponies or even donkeys.

For a party I encourage the purchase of a cart. It just makes life easier on lower levels.
Think of it another way. It provides a great cover story for going to any city. Just carry a bunch of trade goods and claim to be a traveling merchant. You could even try to hide some of your 'other' stuff from the eyes of the authorities. Remember that you do not have to always drag your horses around on every mission. Just hire a stable to keep them for a while.

Another thing to think about with mounts.
You look like the 'better off', richer or even noble just having them. A combat trained mount is even more impressive. And the more impressive you look the higher the price you could demand.

And besides. DNDBeyond just makes it easy. Turn on the encumbrance button. I wish they had the "gritty realism" option button also.

I don’t use it at all. I just kind of assume characters can carry what they need to carry. Without the weight of armor, weaker characters usually don’t have issues, so it’s extra work for not much payoff. 
Now if there was a special circumstance, like trying to move something really heavy, it might come up. But otherwise I just ignore it. 

I don't believe I've played a game where we actually bothered to track it.  Even in my 3rd and 2nd Edition groups, encumbrance was generally ignored unless someone was going egregiously overboard (like lugging around multiple suits of plate).

So, people track their spell components religiously, but not their encumbrance?  That seems so counter intuitive, before these polls I would have figured it to be in reverse.

Well, you can ritual cast Tenser’s floating disk and get around most encumberence issues, but if you need a diamond, there’s really no substitute. 

Tracking encumbrance is pointless, at low levels you don't have enough stuff to matter, and at mid/high levels just buy bag of holding, handy haversack, etc.  It really only exists to deter the most ridiculous player hoarding tactics of trying to take literally everything that isn't nailed down

I like the encumbrance rules but it does make it pretty challenging on characters who wear heavy armor.

If you do use the variant encumbrance rules, a related concept that you might run into is a player asking you if it requires an action in combat to "drop" their backpack?

Oh, for sure.  I imagine that you could consider it a pure Object Interaction to drop the backpack (it’s not exactly strapped and bolted on like armor).  You know, I am considering using the Variant rule, but keeping it on a trial basis until it very obviously doesn’t work.  In some ways I do like the fact it discourages Players from considering Strength to be a dump stat in any way.  And let’s be honest that a 10 Strength Character hauling up to 50lbs all over the place is pretty impressive in a real world point of view.  Simultaneously, I agree that this is a Fantasy GAME and it’s certainly not supposed to hew that close to something like Game of Thrones (did you notice the complete lack of looting in those books and show?)!

In movies there is little that is close to realism.

Up until about 1850 it was normal in non western nations and common place to allow your solders to loot to supplement their pay, to a point.
They were never allowed to loot the nobles who were ransomed off and obviously their stuff was for the commanders. The poor can rob the poor but only the rich can rob the rich.

It was even allowed in some units of the American Civil War.

The time it can matter, I think, is if you’re doing extended travel, and don’t have a Druid to cast goodberry, or someone with a good survival for foraging. So if you need to haul around rations, at 2 pounds for one day’s worth, it can matter. Though after a couple days you’ve probably eaten enough that it’s not much of a problem anymore. 

Quote from Appellion >>

So, people track their spell components religiously, but not their encumbrance?  That seems so counter intuitive, before these polls I would have figured it to be in reverse.

 Well, expensive material components are an investment.  Playing inventory management to determine whether or not your character can actually haul all their money and loot around is not as entertaining to most players.