PDA

View Full Version : First-time Homebrewer seeking help/advice.



Zap Dynamic
2012-02-20, 12:00 PM
...I like long walks on the beach...only respond if you're serious...yadda yadda. :smalltongue:

I've been kicking around a homebrew idea for a while now, and I don't know how exactly to go about it. It's been behind the back burner for awhile, but now that I'm working on two separate settings that will feature a lot of homebrew, I figure it's time to deal with this. What I'm envisioning is a new way to represent combat that will allow for more cinematic/mobile combat. Here's what I've got:

The Problem As I See It:
In 3.5 and Pathfinder, combat seems to devolve into "Here I am in my square, and there the enemy is in his. I want to hit him." Wash. Rinse. Repeat. The only time characters seem to move is when they're seeking out a new opponent or trying to get away from something.

Contrast this with almost any movie or book that features anything resembling medieval combat. Every time it comes to combat, there's always a rock to trip over (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ygRholyh5g), gaps to leap (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-RPy4RRb7Y&feature=fvsr), a ledge to fall from (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC6dgtBU6Gs), or...you know, ladders to flip around on (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLZfGrt6zIc). Admittedly, you find this more often in swashbuckling films, but I think there are examples everywhere (the fight between Beowulf and Grendel in the 2007 movie will serve, as will most of the combat in ASoIaF). Unfortunately, you don't find it at the table very often.

What I'm proposing:
This new way to represent combat will need to represent certain things:

Skill: Rather than simply having a higher BAB and AC than the other guy, I think it would be rewarding to be a smart combatant. Even a barbarian or a knight in shining armor can notice the hazard waiting just a few steps to the left, and only the chivalrous ones would refrain from using it.
"Engagement": In every fight, whether it's one knight versus a dragon or a dynamic duo versus a whole army, one side or another has the upper hand, driving the other side where they will.
Hazards: One party in the duel controlling movement doesn't make a difference if there aren't interesting place to go. To that end, there needs to be a list of things that grant bonuses/penalties for being on or near them. Standing beneath the chandelier, fighting backed into a corner, even holding the high ground.


There are certainly others, but that's a good start for now.

To achieve this, I have a few ideas:

Lego-Mentality: When I was younger, I used to spend hours putting Lego pieces together in every combination I could think of. That mentality--the custom configuration of different parts--in something I really love, and would like to see here. I picture the DM's job to be to assemble battlefields out of a lot of component pieces, giving the players interesting arenas filled with traps and gambits.
"Theoretical" Combat: I'm picturing a system where everything can be resolved with words and rolls alone (read: no grid maps). Granted, you could just as easily put it on a board, but movement on its own will be relatively unimportant compared to who controls the movement. If this works, it might be a very nice system to use in PBP games.
Engagement: This would probably be a separate stat, like initiative and BAB. I'm not sure what would make up this stat, but it will define who controls the movement for all those involved in this "duel." Naturally, there will likely be more than one "duel" going on at once, and these "duels" could consist of any number of combatants.
Hazards: These would be places that impose penalties on one player while granting bonuses to another (or just one or the other). They need to be balanced such that characters within a couple levels of each other are more or less on even footing, leaving room for "victorious underdogs." Things like ledges, narrow beams, bookshelves to topple, rubble to scramble over, stairs to fight on, even other duels to collide with.


At this point, I turn it over to the Brave Homebrewers at GitP. Am I explaining everything clearly? Does it seem like a good idea? Does anyone have any ideas about how to make it work? I think I have vision enough to be a leader on this project, but I'm unpracticed when it comes to the crunchier side of things. Please help! :smallsmile:

Grinner
2012-02-20, 01:08 PM
Monte Cook tackled something like this a while ago. The problem is that though systems like this exist, no one ever bothers to use them.

Zap Dynamic
2012-02-20, 01:43 PM
Thanks! What I'm finding is some pretty great info. I'll read through it and give my opinion here... maybe later today.

bloodtide
2012-02-20, 01:58 PM
At this point, I turn it over to the Brave Homebrewers at GitP. Am I explaining everything clearly? Does it seem like a good idea? Does anyone have any ideas about how to make it work? I think I have vision enough to be a leader on this project, but I'm unpracticed when it comes to the crunchier side of things. Please help! :smallsmile:

This always sounds like a good idea, but it suffers from the problem that it's simply hard, impractical or impossible to do.

You get two big problems:

1.It's too simple. This is the problem with games that try to simulate such combat: it's too simple. The writer fills up a couple pages with their ideas of combat....and then just stops. Once they put a couple ideas down, they loose steam and the system goes nowhere.

2.It's too complicated. The other problem with a lot of systems. They have pages and page of details. Just D&D with it's simple combat takes forever to do a single encounter, the more complicated combat can take forever and a day.

And I've never seen a good middle ground.

Mulletmanalive
2012-02-20, 02:12 PM
Monte's best solution so far was the one basically lifted straight from Exalted: you gain a bonus, or possibly an ad hoc effect, if you describe using the terrain. I"ve seen it work okay, i've also seen a cheat sheet for things like "tall thing falls on character," "shove something ito a character" etc. Most of it boiled down to bonuses on combat manoeuvres or the ability to ignore AoOs.

Then one of his freelancers went and overcomplicated everything and created BOTH scenarios from Bloodtie's post. It was both inexhaustive and over fiddly.

For myself, I've always used:
Which combat manoeuvre does it most resemble? Use that
Should it cancel an Attack of Opportunity? If so, do that, otherwise +2 on the roll
Is it particularly impressive? If so, +2 to roll
Is it particularly dangerous? If yes, +2d6 damage on success and failure deals 1d6 damage [or falling damage] to attacker.

Not exactly complex, so it can be thought up in a few seconds...

Zap Dynamic
2012-02-20, 03:56 PM
Monte's best solution so far was the one basically lifted straight from Exalted: you gain a bonus, or possibly an ad hoc effect, if you describe using the terrain. I"ve seen it work okay, i've also seen a cheat sheet for things like "tall thing falls on character," "shove something ito a character" etc. Most of it boiled down to bonuses on combat manoeuvres or the ability to ignore AoOs.

Then one of his freelancers went and overcomplicated everything and created BOTH scenarios from Bloodtie's post. It was both inexhaustive and over fiddly.

For myself, I've always used:
Which combat manoeuvre does it most resemble? Use that
Should it cancel an Attack of Opportunity? If so, do that, otherwise +2 on the roll
Is it particularly impressive? If so, +2 to roll
Is it particularly dangerous? If yes, +2d6 damage on success and failure deals 1d6 damage [or falling damage] to attacker.

Not exactly complex, so it can be thought up in a few seconds...

That seems like a nice, elegant little solution! It doesn't really address the "engagement" that I'm thinking of, but it doesn't really need to.

Mulletmanalive
2012-02-20, 04:17 PM
I don'tt end to scale with levels on damage very much: it should probably be more like 2d6, +2d6 per 5 BAB of the character, half that damage if you mess up...

Dungeoncrasher possibly allowing you to double this again... cutting down a tree and riding it down onto a dragon's head or something...

Kane0
2012-02-20, 06:04 PM
The Problem As I See It:
In 3.5 and Pathfinder, combat seems to devolve into "Here I am in my square, and there the enemy is in his. I want to hit him." Wash. Rinse. Repeat. The only time characters seem to move is when they're seeking out a new opponent or trying to get away from something.


Our group has solved that particular problem by being inventive and descriptive.
For example there are two prone allies beside a strong opponent with reach, I charge to provoke its AoO and allow them to stand up with no hassles. I also always carry around a flask or few of alchemist fire in case the party wizard casts grease.

Most encounters can be improved by playing smart and/or creatively, not simply efficiently. Intentionally not doing something your supposed to or actively doing something your not supposed to can lead to some very interesting results. And that dosen't apply to just movement of course.

Zap Dynamic
2012-02-20, 07:12 PM
This always sounds like a good idea, but it suffers from the problem that it's simply hard, impractical or impossible to do.

You get two big problems:

1.It's too simple. This is the problem with games that try to simulate such combat: it's too simple. The writer fills up a couple pages with their ideas of combat....and then just stops. Once they put a couple ideas down, they loose steam and the system goes nowhere.

2.It's too complicated. The other problem with a lot of systems. They have pages and page of details. Just D&D with it's simple combat takes forever to do a single encounter, the more complicated combat can take forever and a day.

And I've never seen a good middle ground.

I didn't see this earlier, but I was actually thinking that the simpler it is, the better. IMO, how long combat lasts should be more about your own strategic skill and the number of hit points you have than about the encumbrance of the rules.

And Kane0, I agree completely about the importance of being creative in the game. One of the most important (and, I think, overlooked) parts of tabletop play is the responsibility players have to help flesh out the game. Its not fair for the players to leave all the work up to the DM, and likewise its not fair for the DM to restrict players from having any kind of creative license.

My own idea was an attempt to codify this creativity, mainly for players that--for whatever reason--don't have the chutzpah to come up with the ideas on their own. Making a list of hazards etc. that might come up in combat (and suggested bonuses/penalties they grant) would be helpful for a DM designing a battlefield, too.

Owrtho
2012-02-20, 08:09 PM
Well, if you're concerned about the lack of movement in combat, one thought would be to include some rules like this:

During one's turn, while engaged in melee combat with one or more opponents, at any point the character may choose to move up to 5 feet. When doing so they may select one opponent to be currently fighting with (feats or class abilities may allow more than one), against whom they will provoke no attack of opportunity from the movement. If this would move them out of range for that opponent, the opponent has the option to make a free 5 foot movement to remain in range, which does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the character.

Then to provide a reason to move, add various terrain rules that can provide bonuses or penalties (some possibly depending on what the adjacent square is like).

This would deal with what I see as the main deterrents of movement in combat. First that there is usually no reason to, and second that doing so once engaged risks giving the opponent a free attack (and also may prevent you from taking the actions you want to take).

Owrtho

ngilop
2012-02-20, 08:43 PM
SO, what i am getting formt his is that you want to include the surroundings, such as tables, stairs, coatracks etc and use them?

this might be the 'old-school' gamer in me, but don't people do all of that already?

I remember one fight in particualr where our party fighter leapt up ontop of a table while the elvel rogued cralwd under it and jabbed with his spear?

is this not supported play in the later editions?

Grinner
2012-02-20, 09:50 PM
SO, what i am getting formt his is that you want to include the surroundings, such as tables, stairs, coatracks etc and use them?

this might be the 'old-school' gamer in me, but don't people do all of that already?

I remember one fight in particualr where our party fighter leapt up ontop of a table while the elvel rogued cralwd under it and jabbed with his spear?

is this not supported play in the later editions?

Later editions tend to be a little less freeform. This is not to say that a sufficiently clever group couldn't do that, but that the sheer number of rules discourages that.

In other words, it seems as though a game with fewer rules is also less restrictive psychologically, and the inverse is true of a heavily rule-laden game.

Ziegander
2012-02-20, 10:16 PM
I think a lot of what you're looking to achieve with skill and hazards could be done by taking a page from 4th Edition and using the concept of "Combat Advantage" liberally. Let Combat Advantage be gained and lost easily and fluidly, with several different things able to grant it to characters or remove it from characters. Having powers that give players some narrative control by simply saying things like, "you cause your foe to stumble over debris, gaining Combat Advantage," would go a very long way.

I am intrigued by the ideas of "theoretical" combat and engagement, and I wonder how exactly you'd implement something like this. You could possibly use three "speeds," Close, Medium, and Long (just like spell ranges), for movement, and then for any group of creatures that threaten each other, the creature with the highest "engagement" gets several special options, perhaps free movement to follow creatures that leave its threatened squares. Also, perhaps creatures it threatens that have lower engagement cannot move freely (without using special actions - maybe tumble, maybe full disengage, whatever).

Zap Dynamic
2012-02-21, 09:01 AM
Good ideas so far. I haven't played 4e, and I haven't read the rules in a looonnng time, so I had forgotten about Combat Advantage.


I am intrigued by the ideas of "theoretical" combat and engagement, and I wonder how exactly you'd implement something like this. You could possibly use three "speeds," Close, Medium, and Long (just like spell ranges), for movement, and then for any group of creatures that threaten each other, the creature with the highest "engagement" gets several special options, perhaps free movement to follow creatures that leave its threatened squares. Also, perhaps creatures it threatens that have lower engagement cannot move freely (without using special actions - maybe tumble, maybe full disengage, whatever).

I imagine it being very freeform, much like ngilop's stuff about OD&D. I don't have time for a full post, but here's generally what I'm thinking:


The classes tavern brawl. You've got four major elements: A Table (which functions as a "High Ground" zone [i.e. standing on top and fighting], granting +2 to attack and AC, or an "Impediment" zone [i.e. keeping the table between you and your opponent], granting +2 to AC and +4 vs. Bull Rush), A Stair Case (which functions as a "High Ground" zone, and also allows you access to the Loft), A Loft (which functions as a "Dueling" zone, granting bonuses if you're only fighting one other person up there), and The Chandelier (which functions as a "charge" means of travel back to the main floor, allowing AoOs against all foes in the way, and is only accesible from the Loft).

"Engagement" as I picture it would be a declaration ("I'm going to engage my 6th level character against these three 2nd level characters"), after which you roll for Combat Advantage (the easiest way might be 1d4+BAB at the beginning of every round. Advantage determines who can dictate movement. There may even be something like "Fully Engaged," (full attack, movement speed halved) "Partially Engaged," (single attack, full movement speed) and an attempt to break Engagement (roll for Advantage, if you succeed then you have Advantage and may move away from your opponent without them following you. Movement would be realized more in terms of which terrain features you're moving towards than which square you're moving towards.

Teaming up with someone means that you both roll for Advantage (with a +2 bonus per each additional person, similar to Aid Another), take the higher number, and compare that to the opponent's roll.

Thoughts so far?

Owrtho
2012-02-21, 12:31 PM
The issue as I see it with that way of determining who controls movement of combat is it doesn't do a good job of showing that a character may always attempt to fall back to more advantageous terrain, while being in the dominant position in combat only means you're able to press forward against the opponent in addition to that.

As such it might work better to make it so that anyone may attempt to move combat in a direction away from the opponent while fighting (which the opponent may freely follow), while if you have the upper hand for the round you may attempt to press the advantage, which grants a notable bonus to attacks and/or damage if the opponent does not fall back.
This would make it their choice if they want to move back, or take the high risk of standing their ground. As an example, in the bar fight described above, there may be some toppled chairs, that if a characters engaged in combat risk tripping over if they move over them (with a noticeable penalty to avoiding tripping if you are falling back while doing so). A character may know that somewhere behind him is a toppled chair as he's near the table, but not exactly where to avoid it. The opponent presses an advantage on him, so he may thing it is better to take the increased risk from the attacks than to risk tripping and falling (which may well be worse).

With that, you might add some way that characters pressing an advantage may try to direct the opponent. Examples would be abilities that would allow the bonus to remain (entirely or just in part) if the enemy fell back in a predeclared direction (such as left diagonal, strait back, or right diagonal).

Owrtho

Zap Dynamic
2012-02-21, 10:16 PM
This makes me think of two things: first, I REALLY like the idea of the character not being certain about what's behind them. Having a top-down view of the game board all but eliminates that, and I think a theoretical perspective on combat might be just the thing to foster it.

Second, as far as "movement options" are concerned, I think the best way to handle it would be as follows. In any situation, a character is free to attempt to break engagement and move away from combat. With an opponent hammering away at your defenses, it might simply not be possible for a character to get away, so I think a roll is necessary.

On the other hand, if you have Advantage over an opponent, you just plain do direct movement for the both of you. It might be prudent to require another check, but I like the idea of "the upper hand" granting some serious advantages. Granted, these advantages can't be so great that whomever has the upper hand is guaranteed to win.

Owrtho
2012-02-21, 10:43 PM
Second, as far as "movement options" are concerned, I think the best way to handle it would be as follows. In any situation, a character is free to attempt to break engagement and move away from combat. With an opponent hammering away at your defenses, it might simply not be possible for a character to get away, so I think a roll is necessary.

I wasn't talking about breaking engagement when I mentioned a character falling back in combat. I was talking about intentionally allowing them-self to be forced back. After all, even if you can't push, you can still pull. In your version where only the dominant combatant for the round controls movement, you fail to account for the fact that an opponent may choose not to follow if you move back, thus causing a gap between the two of you, or an opponent may decide to move back as if you were pressing forward when you aren't thus causing you to have to press after them, or allow a gap to form.
It also doesn't account for the fact that unless you're actually bull-rushing someone and pushing them back, usually when you control combat to push an opponent forward (for you, back for them), they're falling back due to your strong attack and a desire to use that backward movement to help avoid and block it. If they choose not to do that, then they don't end up moving back, you just get some stronger than normal attacks on them.

As I see it, the primary advantage of currently controlling combat should be the ability to drive the opponent back, meaning that you can direct them where you want, without the risks that come from moving backward, while at the same time forcing those risks on them. If they don't fall back, they get hit by stronger than normal attacks. If you lack the advantage, you can still try to direct combat by falling back at your own desire, but then your directions are limited, and you suffer risks of unseen terrain.

As for using a game board, I think that it would still have its place even in a theoretical combat type situation. The difference though is that only the DM would see it. After all, the main benefit of such boards is making it easy to keep track of where things are relative to each other in a way that isn't easy with just text based descriptions.

Owrtho

Zap Dynamic
2012-02-22, 12:35 AM
I wasn't talking about breaking engagement when I mentioned a character falling back in combat. I was talking about intentionally allowing them-self to be forced back. After all, even if you can't push, you can still pull.

Gotcha. I agree completely, but I think that "voluntarily pulling back"--especially to lead your opponent into a trap or something--is no different that having Advantage and controlling movement in general. In my mind, there's a lot more to do when a character has Advantage than merely to drive your opponent before you. You can go frontways and backways and sideways and slantways, etc.


In your version where only the dominant combatant for the round controls movement, you fail to account for the fact that an opponent may choose not to follow if you move back, thus causing a gap between the two of you, or an opponent may decide to move back as if you were pressing forward when you aren't thus causing you to have to press after them, or allow a gap to form.

You sure? I think I accounted for gaps in the "attempting to break free of Engagement" bit, but I could have left something unexpressed.


It also doesn't account for the fact that unless you're actually bull-rushing someone and pushing them back, usually when you control combat to push an opponent forward (for you, back for them), they're falling back due to your strong attack and a desire to use that backward movement to help avoid and block it. If they choose not to do that, then they don't end up moving back, you just get some stronger than normal attacks on them.

I think it's a compelling idea to say that someone has the option to resist being controlled, at the cost of suffering more grievous attacks. Maybe they gain a bonus to regaining Advantage the next round, but they pay the piper in this one?

Also, I imagine maneuvers like Bull Rush being eliminated from this system. Actually, I guess it would be better to say that I picture them engulfing this system, because if Advantage allows you to dictate the movement of your opponent/s, then Bull Rushing is really all you're doing.


As for using a game board, I think that it would still have its place even in a theoretical combat type situation. The difference though is that only the DM would see it. After all, the main benefit of such boards is making it easy to keep track of where things are relative to each other in a way that isn't easy with just text based descriptions.

Agreed. I imagined it being represented by a flowchart (or even just a list... "Character A is Engaged with Character X and they are being affected by Zone M"...), but to each his own. A map would definitely be helpful, but I agree that it should be a DM-only kind of thing.

Here are the terms that seem to keep popping up:

Engagement: The interlocking of two or more characters in a combat situation. "Engaged" combatants are essentially a single unit to be moved around the combat area by whichever side holds Advantage.

Advantage: The prevailing combatant/s in an engagement. This may be determined by a roll (BAB+some modifier determined by relative level?), and would be determined at the beginning of every round. The combatant/s with Advantage will dictate movement in any direction.

Breaking Engagement: Some sort of role (perhaps something like Escape Artist, but I don't like the idea of using a skill... especially a preexisting one) that will allow the "underdog" at the time to break Engagement (and, thus, the other side's Advantage) and move away from the combat.

Resisting Advantage: An "underdog" maneuver (maybe akin to a defensive action) that grants a bonus to your next attempt to gain Advantage, but your opponent is given bonuses to attack/damage/both for the remainder of the current round.

Movement: Realized in terms of an Engaged Group's relation to various Zones, rather than placement on a grid. Whether a combatant is facing toward/away from a Zone can make a difference (i.e. when a combatant with Advantage is driving the opponent toward a pile of chairs the opponent can't see).

Zone: An area that modifies combat in some way. Staircases, difficult terrain, cover, and a host of other things are included.

Owrtho
2012-02-22, 11:24 AM
Gotcha. I agree completely, but I think that "voluntarily pulling back"--especially to lead your opponent into a trap or something--is no different that having Advantage and controlling movement in general. In my mind, there's a lot more to do when a character has Advantage than merely to drive your opponent before you. You can go frontways and backways and sideways and slantways, etc.

You sure? I think I accounted for gaps in the "attempting to break free of Engagement" bit, but I could have left something unexpressed.

The thing is, anyone can voluntarily pull back while fighting. If a character doesn't get penalties for being pushed back when they lack the advantage (aside from not seeing where they are going), they shouldn't get penalties if they move back in the same manner on their own. They also aren't attempting to break free of engagement in such a situation, just trying to shift the location. As you mentioned, there are multiple ways you can go when you have the advantage. Looking at things from a standard grid view, you have forward, back, left, right, forward diagonals (front left and front right), and back diagonals (back left and back right). A character with the advantage would be able to choose to try making combat go in any of those directions. A character without would be able to only try making combat go in the three back directions (as a side note, in my past posts, I was referring to forward as directions where the character wouldn't be going backward, while backward was when they would be). There might also be some abilities or feats that would allow advantage to limit the directions an opponent can try moving further, such as declaring the back left is being guarded, which would provide some form of bonus if the opponent tried moving that direction. A bluff opposed by sense motive could be used to try making it look like you're actually protecting a different direction (which would be declared instead if successful).

As for when I mentioned a gap forming due to a character pulling back, the issue where it isn't covered in breaking engagement is that the one who broke engagement is the person who chose not to move, and never really tried to break it anyway. In melee combat, you can't force a person to follow you if you move away (discounting methods of holding or dragging them), as such if you pull back planning to have the come with you (with or without combat advantage), they may decide it's in their best interest to stand their ground, which would cause no penalty for them, other than that they may no longer be able to reach you (depending on reach, though likely the same applies to you). After all, if you're fighting someone immune to fire, and they decide to try leading you back into the wall of fire, you likely will decide that isn't the best idea to follow. Particularly if you have some kind of benefit or bonus due to where you currently are.

Owrtho

Zap Dynamic
2012-02-22, 03:49 PM
I think I have a better understanding of what you're talking about. Not certain that I agree just yet, but let me take it point by point:


The thing is, anyone can voluntarily pull back while fighting. If a character doesn't get penalties for being pushed back when they lack the advantage (aside from not seeing where they are going), they shouldn't get penalties if they move back in the same manner on their own. They also aren't attempting to break free of engagement in such a situation, just trying to shift the location. As you mentioned, there are multiple ways you can go when you have the advantage. Looking at things from a standard grid view, you have forward, back, left, right, forward diagonals (front left and front right), and back diagonals (back left and back right). A character with the advantage would be able to choose to try making combat go in any of those directions. A character without would be able to only try making combat go in the three back directions (as a side note, in my past posts, I was referring to forward as directions where the character wouldn't be going backward, while backward was when they would be).

Understood. Essentially, in a situation where the combatant with Advantage is trying to move backwards (luring his opponent with him), there's nothing that's compelling that opponent to actually move with the Advantaged combatant. Like you said, if a fire-immune dude is trying to back up into flames and combatant #2 is not immune to flames, it would be stupid of combatant #2 to move with combatant #1.

The way I was envisioning it is that if a combatant has Advantage and wants to move backward, it could be described that he's letting the Disadvantaged combatant believe that the tables are turned. However, that would imply that the Disadvantaged combatant can suddenly dictate movement. That needs work, and your solution may be the answer.


There might also be some abilities or feats that would allow advantage to limit the directions an opponent can try moving further, such as declaring the back left is being guarded, which would provide some form of bonus if the opponent tried moving that direction. A bluff opposed by sense motive could be used to try making it look like you're actually protecting a different direction (which would be declared instead if successful).

I'm not sure that I understand this. The Advantaged Combatant can "protect" certain angles of movement, meaning that a Disadvantaged Combatant can't "escape" in those directions? I like that idea, but I want to make sure we're thinking of the same thing. While I'm thinking about it, I think a system like this would have to revamp the class system, giving certain classes (like the Fighter and probably the Rogue) progressions for Advantage Check bonuses, and also supplying abilities like the ones who mention.


As for when I mentioned a gap forming due to a character pulling back, the issue where it isn't covered in breaking engagement is that the one who broke engagement is the person who chose not to move, and never really tried to break it anyway. In melee combat, you can't force a person to follow you if you move away (discounting methods of holding or dragging them), as such if you pull back planning to have the come with you (with or without combat advantage), they may decide it's in their best interest to stand their ground, which would cause no penalty for them, other than that they may no longer be able to reach you (depending on reach, though likely the same applies to you).

I agree mostly, and my only quibble is more or less semantics. I would say that the person who broke engagement is the one who tempted to break away, not the person who stood there and did nothing. In the system I envision, the person trying to break away would have to make a check for that, which would drive home the idea that they were the ones who broke Engagement. Does that make sense?