5e rules don't actually have flanking at all, but some form of house rules for flanking is pretty common. The most common I've seen is that flanking attackers get advantage, which sometimes feels a little too strong. I play in some games where flanking attackers get +1 or +2 on their attack rolls, which feels a lot more reasonable. Advantage is a pretty big deal to give away that easily (not that it's always easy).
Same in my games (as a player). It is a popular homebrew (+2 for Flanking) especially after some D&D Youtubers made it more popular (which is where my DMs saw it).
Reason : both players and DMs felt flanking was too easy to get Advantage on NPCs that easily end-up outnumbered. In 3.5, running around someone could provoke an AoO, so there was a risk in some cases.
Coming from 4e, that this is not baked into 5e kind of baffles me. Running circles around an enemy would get you swatted in 4e, and Flanking gives +2. I guess it’s because of the disengagement cost.
I would be perfectly all right if BG3 ended up closer to the 4e rules for disengagement and flanking. Would disengagement costing movement but forcing a character to take a movement penalty be a good compromise? Larian seems to feel that disengagement costing a full action is too harsh for a video game, but *some* cost is obviously correct.