Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Focused Examination: Intimate Choreography with Small-sized Characters

Hello folks,

So, this is a personal project that I've been putting together for a little while now. I'm posting it here on the forums, but the main direction of the writing is as a submission to Larian's own feedback reporting directly. Comments are welcome, but the feedback itself will likely be sent off before it's posted here, and to be frank... this is a lot of reading, so I'm not expecting a lot of engagement back here ^.^ It's okay.

As some of you know, I made a thread focused on breaking down the choreography, scene direction, tone, atmosphere and pacing of one of the intimate cutscenes that we've had the ability to preview in BG3 – Minthara's intimate scene. This thread is in a similar, but more general vein, and it focuses on an issue that is often neglected in any media that deals with it. Since Larian are going all in on giving us intimate erotic sequences, I wanted to put together this thread to discuss the difficulties and necessary considerations that come into play when designing, choreographing and shooting intimate scenes where one of the participants is much smaller than the other; the things you need to think about, the things that simply do not work, or must be worked differently, and all of the other various important elements that often fall by the wayside whenever this comes up.

This discussion is preemptive in nature, or it aims to be. Larian have shown us that they intend to place fully visualised erotic sequences into the game, but aside from the one sequence with Minthara, we haven't seen anything else of their work as of yet (Or, at least, I haven't – there was a brief time when some more bits and pieces were in, but I didn't manage to catch them, so I can only work off the assumption that we can expect scenes of at least as overt and explicit nature as we have for Minthara, for our other companions), so there won't be any real connections directly to the game itself here, or anything to be comparing it 'against'.

So, as in the other thread, viewers are forewarned: this discussion will contain NSFW elements. It will contain adult language, discussion of sexual practice and sexual positions, as well as modelled imagery relating to these topics. If you do not want to see that, this thread is not for you. This is a thread about small-sized characters engaging in intimate behaviour; these characters are depicted as fully mature, consenting adults able to make their own decisions... I may not be a halfling myself but I am very small, slightly built, with practically no breasts to speak of, and I don't appreciate folks trying to tell me that I can't or shouldn't pursue normal healthy sex life because it's 'problematic'... So I can only imagine that the small-sized characters referenced herein would feel the same way if they were told similar by some big-job of some other race that got their sensibilities ruffled. So, if you find yourself thinking about writing a comment to the tune of 'this is problematic', 'they're child-like', or anything of that sort, please, just save us all a little time, and don't.

As before, I am not a fully qualified cinematographer, or a trained film studies student; I know a good deal about many elements of it, but I know there are a few other people on these forums with more training in this field than me. What I do know a good deal about is, er, well... the mechanics of the topic at hand, let's say.

With that out of the way... I'll be focusing mostly on two-person, giver-receiver pairings for the majority of this discussion. I'm using deliberately masculine and feminine models for this, but this is primarily to make the distinction between giver and receiver immediately apparent.

I've taken some time to talk to a couple of men-who-sleep-with-men, and I don't wish to downplay the ways in which these relationships can and often do differ, or the extra considerations involved there, however, to begin with, the purely physical considerations have a majority of overlap with hetero pairings, and I'm not personally equipped or experienced enough to speak about the extra considerations that come into play for them, or where they differ, except to note that those considerations exist and deserve attention in those circumstances. I will have one piece of specific commentary to add on this score, but I'll wait until after everything else has been discussed. At the opposite end, purely physical dynamic considerations for F/F pairings are much easier for me to talk about, but just can't be couched in a giver-receiver analysis like this; those will have to wait as well, if I still have the stamina to continue the discussion once I'm done with the main body of it.

==

Where to start? To accompany the discussion, I'll be using some visual aids in the form of modelling shots that will help to illustrate what I'm talking about. For these I'll be using a simple set of models that use more or less proper medium and small humanoid proportions – not the small character proportions reflected in the game right now, but ones that better illustrate how they ought to be (I'd encourage any who haven't before to take a read through my thread on halfling models Here)

Here they are:



My skills aren't great, I know; these are basic shapes made to illustrate the discussion, that's all. No I didn't give the boys any equipment. It didn't seem strictly necessary...

In the following posts, I'll try to break things up into manageable sections.

So, let's start with the considerations for the position that everyone always starts with, in these sorts of discussions – Missionary.


Missionary positions and their variants may be considered bland or dull positions, but in that mundanity they also make up the most flexible category of sex positions in terms of scene choreography and atmosphere. They can find a suitable place in any of the major types of scene – romantic, passionate or overt. Minor changes in the pose can dramatically shape the tone and feeling of what is being conveyed, making it far more versatile than many wilder or more interesting positions, which is why variations of the pose have long remained a staple of intimate choreography. In romantic scenes, the pose hearkens to the more emotional and connected elements of sex – these scenes generally involve few camera changes, relatively speaking, and make use of longer pans that emphasise the closeness of the bodies participating, and a focus on interconnection and eye contact. These types of scenes benefit from a slower, gentler pace in the rhythm and the shooting, and they generally employ more fully parallel variations on the position, with a large degree of full body contact. The focus should almost never be on the individual in this type of scene – you can't show eye contact or close connection with a single face close-up – close-ups should almost always involve both partners. The angles and shots used should show closeness, without showing any obvious or crude details; implication and allusion are the tools to use in these scenes.

Passionate scenes share many of the same focal points, but the rhythm and pace becomes much more aggressive; faster, harsher movements become key, and the scenes involve few slow pans, and instead pick individual fixed shots that can better convey the heated pace of the activity. Physical interconnection that was soft and gentle in a romantic scene should be more desperate here – hands clutched and interlocked tightly, harsh grips, and while eye contact remains a valuable element, it should give way more often to fixation on sensation – kisses that roam, holds that squeeze tight; where the eyes may have shut softly in a romantic scene, here they squeeze tight with passion instead. This is the realm of heads thrown back in ecstasy, or craned down in lustful need. Here, we should see more of the lovers' bodies, and we can discard allusion and implication for clear, but tactful shots that show as much of the participants as they can, while still avoiding overt details. The missionary versions and variants used tend towards slightly more body separation than before, to allow for harsher angles to suggest themselves in the scene. The actual mechanics of the act itself are secondary to the passion and lust that these scenes seek to convey. A slow, intimate or romantic scene can, and often does, evolve into a raw, hungry, passionate scene – but when you do this, the atmospheric shift should be clear (even if it is gradual), and your choreography should change to accompany it as the scene evolves from one to the other.

When shooting an overtly sexual scene, designed specifically to titillate a viewing audience, most of the elements can easily resemble passionate scene shooting, however the variations of the position used, and the camera angles chosen, are made to give the best view of the action itself – here, the view no longer shies away from the clear mechanics of the act; it's lustful and sexual, and the camera is positioned to make this clear. This kind of shooting gives very little focus to the heads and faces of the lovers and it rarely uses close-ups, or any kind of allusion or tactful implication. Of the three main types, missionary struggles with this type of shooting the most, as even variations on the position that allow the giver to remain more upright, to show off what's happening, only provide a few really good angles to work with. It bears repeating from the previous thread, as well, but in game terms, we absolutely need 'complete' character models in order to do this kind of scene shooting justice.

With that all in mind, some summarised key points about the position: with two medium sized models, the penetrating partner can support themselves comfortably and still maintain eye contact without craning their neck, if desired. The receiving partner can easily lock their legs as a show of closeness, high desire or an eagerness to set the rhythm, and generally still has the reach to touch their partner's neck, face and head, even if the giving partner remains raised (as mentioned, for scenes shot purely to be watched by others, this is often considered a necessity). In sequences that are more purely romantic or emotive in nature, the giving partner can lie down more closely, creating more body contact and allowing for kissing, and making it easier to more smoothly disguise the pure mechanics of the act itself without detracting from the scene.

So, we can choreograph a lovely erotic and arousing sexual encounter in this position that involves many of these lovely features... but then, we have to consider small size characters, and suddenly several of these elements break down or need to be considered and adjusted – more than simply realigning the groins!

Suppose we have a small-sized receiver, first of all.


The first thing to consider is that with a smaller receiver, the penetration point is going to be closer to the ground, unless you compensate for it – it may not seem like much difference (I know, it really doesn't), but if the giver is doing all the work of repositioning here, they're either going to have to stretch out more, or else end up having to spread their knees to an impractical extent. Stretching out fully, however...



...will press the medium-sized giver's pelvis and waist directly over and on top of the small-sized receiver's – and this forces the receiver into an extremely uncomfortable, likely strain inducing, position – as well as running the concern of squishing them and functionally removing their input from the act as a whole.

A more practical adjustment here is that the receiver will want to raise their hips up, off the ground, instead. This means either you need to account for a supporting object in the scene (a bedroll, not a rock, please...), or else the giver will have to support the position – this means taking one of their hands away from whatever else it was doing when you wrote the scene for mediums, and reassigning it to supporting the hips. If the scene designer were to just raise the hips up with no other consideration, it would end up looking 'floaty' or otherwise a bit uncanny.

This also leads to the receiver having a tangible shift in their body position and angle, putting more weight back on the shoulders, which needs to be accounted for as well.



Regardless of how you correct the pose, however, the medium-sized giver is going to have to curl their back to some extent in order to maintain comfortable eye contact with their partner – keeping a straight back, whether in an upright direction or a horizontal one, will prevent any kind of meaningful visual contact between the participants. For the same reason, kissing from this position is more or less impossible – so if the scene choreography for medium sized characters contains kissing, that needs to either necessitate a change of position (doable if it's at the end of the scene, or at a point when penetration has concluded anyway), or else it will need to be replaced with something else. Many other types of intimate contact can fill this gap, in this position, but in particular intimate touches around the hair and face are good surrogates when kissing isn't feasible.

Other points to note here – a small-sized receiver is generally not going to be able to leg-lock a medium-sized giver in the same way a medium-sized character could, so they shouldn't be trying to – a pose that is comfortable for the legs that allows them to apply pressure with the thighs or calves, rather than trying for an ankle lock, is a good adjustment.

On the flip side, the scene that was designed for two medium-sized characters is also going to need a different set of adjustments for a small-sized giver – a direct realignment won't cut it here either.



Well, it Sort of does... but even if you take the effort to realigning all of the limbs to the same rough contact points, you still end up with a number of problems – not the least of which is the small-sized giver not actually having a decent centre of balance or support like this, short of simply supporting the majority of their weight on their partner, which in turn would make it difficult to put any real action into the, er, action. Trying to ankle lock with a smaller sized partner from the same basic missionary position would also be largely impractical. In short, though you could make a direct conversion work in this case, it's not a position that a small-sized giver and medium-sized receiver would realistically adopt.



So what do we do...?

The most prominent correction needed to make this pose work in a comfortable, believable way that still manages to be intimate, is that the small-sized giver cannot really lie out flat in true missionary sense – they are going to need to kneel up to some degree. The receiver will not be able to properly leg lock their partner and if the original scene was written that way, that also needs to be changed to a more stable leg pose for this size pairing.



As before, there's no practical way to make kissing work in a missionary pose – so if the original scene has a kiss choreographed into it, then it would necessitate an entire position change, or else a replacement here. Clear eye contact during intimacy is a good substitute where a kiss is infeasible for the scene – missionary in particular is all about eye contact, so taking moments to emphasise that is never a bad thing (even in an overtly sexual scene, staring into your partner's eyes as they, er, act upon you, is still a potent element to make use of).

As well has having the receiver adopt a more stable leg pose, they will also need to prop themselves up slightly if they wish to maintain a sense of contentedness or intimacy in the act. This means that one arm will most likely be required to support the upper body, unless they are able to be shot leaning on a support that the 'original' missionary scene didn't need. The other hand should be free to fulfil other roles, but intimate contact to the cheek, hair or chest are good candidates, as would be using the arm to stand in for a leg-lock that is no longer feasible – doing this allows the receiver to participate along with their partner in directing or controlling the pace and rhythm of the intimacy.

The giver, rather than using one hand to support their partner in a way they can't really reach as a smaller partner, can instead use the hand to grip underneath one of their legs – this fills a dual role of being an intimate contact that offers support, but it also gives the smaller sized partner an extra point of stability for moving against their partner – something to push against comfortably when moving back or away, which as a smaller partner, they need; this helps the pose look more believable and real.

The giver won't be able to comfortably reach their partner's head from this position, but intimate chest contact is a good stand in, in this situation – whether their partner happens to be in possession of breasts or not.

Those are the main considerations that come up when adapting missionary poses for smaller partners, so let's move on, next up, the world's most popular position...

I'm talking, of course, about doggy-style. It's a position that is often thought of as more wild or animalistic, and in some cultures it's even thought of as demeaning or insulting (and yet... still maintains pride of place as the favourite even in those nations). It's a position that generally allows more direct depth of penetration than most, and is a favourite in situations that want to convey raw, hungry lust.



Now, in real life, doggy-style sex can certainly be intimate and romantic, but its frequent association with being 'as animals do it' means it's rarely associated as such. Passionate, yes; romantic, rarely (sadly...) Nevertheless, it can be used in a romantic scene if it's constructed and shot in the right way. Even for same-sized partners, kissing is difficult from this position – and trying to do so in the middle of love-making is usually just awkward; if the receiving partner leans up and arches back, and twists their torso enough, it's doable, but any lower body movements from either partner will usually have amplified effect on the receiver's upper body, so it's rarely practical. Instead, the giving partner can focus on the receiver's neck – this is a perfectly intimate substitute for direct lip-to-lip kissing, and relieves the awkward difficulties by not requiring the same precision or coordination. For a purely romantic scene, pan shots the follow the giver's back, as well as the body shapes and curves up the torso are good; focus around the faces and neck, which should be close, are also the best choice, as well as paying attention to the hands – in romantic situations, a receiver with a free hand can reach up over their shoulder to old hands with their partner easily enough. As usual, face focused close-ups should never be solo in this type of scene – but focusing on one partner whispering something intimate to the other in their ear or by their neck is wonderful.

Rough, passionate scenes are where this position shines; emphasising rhythm, pace, and vigorous movements are something that this position lends itself to naturally. A receiving partner that wants to be seen to be contributing to their lust for the activity can put one hand back to grip their partner's behind or thigh, directing or confirming the pace. A giving partner has full access with both hands to the entirety of their partner's body relatively easily, and any action of lust or passion – playing with a breast, holding the receiver back and up against them, grabbing the hips or reaching underneath (always good, but likely of special interest to male receivers, I imagine?) are all very easy to do from her, and the scene shooting can show these elements in tactful, erotic yet non-explicit ways quite easily – and shot that shows these elements without being overt will also naturally be contributing to emphasising the pace and motion of the act. Face focused close-ups can be individual in this type of scene, at the height of passion – though they're usually reserved for the receiver – but they should generally be avoided unless they are conveying an extreme moment.

For overt sexual scripting, showing more drawn out shots – close, but not close enough to cut out any of the activity, are likely the main staple; shots that directly show the hip movement (usually some variation of side-angled shots) are the rawest and most directly sexual, but lower angled front shots, and higher angled back shots are also good choices. Interestingly enough, face focused close-ups can work in even this type of sequence, in the specific circumstance of words being shared at particularly, er, important moments... they likely aren't going to be romantic words, and probably would be more lustful, crude or guttural... but that's kind of the point.

But then, we're working with a small-sized receiver, and suddenly we hit a small snag...



“You said kneel down...”
“I didn't mean... never mind, just...”

Just what? Well, clearly just realigning the pelvis position isn't going to cut it here. The pose needs to be adapted. In the case of a small-sized receiver, the giver can either attempt to lower their groin to the right height, or the receiver can lift up somehow.

In the first case, the penetrating partner will need to widen their knees substantially – in order to not make this an uncomfortable or excessive stretch, they'll also have to sit back on their haunches. The small receiver can more easily be positioned to make the pose work now, however there are some important details to note if you go with this correction.


Sitting back like this, the amount of control that either participant has over the pace and depth of the coupling is determined by how raised up or lowered down the Receiver settles. In the first set of images, with the receiver bent low, they actually have the majority of the control – hip motions from the giver are of limited utility because of the position and the angle, while the receiver can put their weight on their hands and control the thrusting easily. Short of the giver bodily grabbing a hold of their partner, the receiver is in control here – so if you correct the position in this way, the receiver should be the one leading the motion. The giver best participates with their hands, since kissing is more or less out of the question – they can take hold of their partner's hips in order to balance out the control and contribute to the rhythm of the scene, or if they're feeling gentle and intimate, perhaps delicate finger strokes down the back, or soft touches to thee hair and cheek.

It's also important to point out that, in this position, if the receiver wishes to make eye contact with their partner, they will actually need to twist their body significantly – note the lowered shoulder allowing them to look up and around far enough to lock eyes here. The receiver might also put one hand back, to rest on their partner's leg, or even to hold hands, depending on the tone you want to set for the scene – these would be good for romantic or soft scenes, but less so for raw or passionate ones. Particularly animal or lustful encounters might forgo any attempt at eye contact – in such cases, the receiver might focus entirely on the act of sensation, and their head might be lowered towards the ground in focus and effort.

This position adjustment changes dramatically if the receiver adopts – or is held in – a more upright position.



In the second set of images (Please forgive the wonky shoulder joints... the models don't like to play nice with arm-over-head positions...), the small receiver has a raised up torso. The result is that now all of the control in this scene rests almost entirely with the Giver instead. The angle of penetration is changed, and with it, the giver's ability to thrust more easily sets the pace and rhythm of the coupling... and the receiver can do very little about this directly. If you're writing this scene to have the larger giver leading the pace and rhythm, or otherwise being in control of the coupling, then this would be the better choice between the two.

If you adjust a doggy style position with a small receiver so that they kneel up while the giver rests back like this, then the receiver's balance is more upright stable and this frees their hands to participate in the scene; if you want them to regain some measure of control, or participate in the rhythm, then their best option is to brace their hands either against their partner's thighs, or to reach back with one hand to press against their chest. In reality, the most a small partner can really achieve in this situation is to guide, or to let their partner know what they want – they can't actually exert any real control of the situation like this.

Kissing is feasible from this position, though it's worth remembering that it's upside-down kissing, by way of the smaller receiver leaning up and back, while the giver leans forward and down – a kiss like this usually comes off as playful or romantic – it doesn't quite mesh with a vigorously passionate scene. A twist of the upper torso can help make the position work more smoothly, as does tilting the heads.

The giver in this position has a lot of freedom, and what they do with it can make or break the tone you're aiming to set when you use this position. Once again, hands and what they do; physical contact beyond the basic genital intersection is so important, throughout any scene or position, but here it's particularly front and centre – the hands must be doing something worth watching for this position to work at all. Whether that's gripping and holding tightly, to emphasise passion or reinforce their lead in the scene, or more gentle touches, gropes and caresses to convey a softer atmosphere, you have the freedom to make sure your actions match the aimed for tone and type of scene, so make sure it does. And a helping hand is never a bad thing, either, regardless of exactly what configuration of genitals it's helping.

One last point of note for this position adjustment – in either case, but most especially if the smaller receiver is male, this position more or less requires complete models, since the genital area is almost certainly going to be visible in the majority of useful angles or shots... so if complete models are out of the question, then this way of adjusting the position will likely not be suitable.

The other way of adjusting a doggy style position for a smaller receiver is if the smaller partner stands up instead.

If the larger giver remains in the same comfortable kneeling position that they might use for the 'standard' doggy style position with a same-sized partner, then a smaller receiver will need to stand up to compensate. Whether it's strictly necessary or not, it's this writer's personal opinion that positions like this always look better, regardless of tone or context, if the receiver stands on the balls of their feet, completely aside the fact that doing so generally makes most positions of this nature easier... Ahem...



If you adjust a traditional doggy-style position in this manner, primarily reconfiguring the smaller receiver to stand up, there are a few considerations that have a notable impact on the dynamic of the scene; meaning, again, that you need to pick carefully the type off adjustment that best suites the tone and atmosphere you're setting.

Positioning of the feet, as minor a detail as it might seen at first glance, affects this position considerably. If the receiver's feet are positioned in line with, and inside the knees to their partner, this naturally puts them in a position where they must rely on their partner for balance unless they have a convenient object nearby to lean on – and it's the right height. What this means is that in most cases, the ability to control the scene and lead within it it falls firmly to the larger sized giver. If your small character adopts – or is held in – an upright torso position, they will be functionally helpless to have any further impact on the scene from that position.

They can place a hand back on their partner to show what sort of pace or depth they want, but they can't exert their desire directly, and must rely on their partner to lead as they ask. Similarly, kissing is possible in this position, but it must be initiated by the giver – the receiver can lift their head up and show a desire or willingness, but the giver has to take the action (while, conversely, they can bend down and kiss their partner without any directed cooperation if they wish)

The larger partner in this position can show a wide spread of tones and desires – lip-to-lip kisses can be romantic or playful, in this pose (but will be awkward for energetic or passionate choreography), and what the larger partner does with their hands will, as in the previous adjusted position, have major, major impact on what sort of a scene it feels like.

Even if the smaller partner leans forward and has a suitable object to support their balance with, having their feet back within the arch of their partner's knees leaves them very few means of actively contributing to the scene; their hands will necessarily be taken up by the role of support, and their partner will still have full control over the rhythm and depth of the act itself.

In short, this adjustment should be used if the scene is one where the larger-sized giver is clearly leading the intimacy, if there is a leader; even in a more balanced, equally shared love-making scene, the giver is unavoidably in control here, and that's worth remembering. It should be avoided in the smaller partner is implied to be more assertive or to have more control of the situation.

A smaller partner that is intended to be shot in a way that still contributes meaningfully to the scene has a few options in this position. In an upright variation, they'll be relying on their partner's support for balance, but using their own hands to hold onto wherever their partner is touching or holding them can add a sense of greater intimacy to an otherwise much more raw sequence. Similarly, if they wish to be seen to be contributing to the motions of the love-making itself, then putting one hand back against their partner's chest or abdomen, to guide the rhythm, can communicate this well. As usual in this kind of position, making eye contact is a deliberate effort, and not something that will happen by chance. If the choreography calls for eye contact, the smaller partner will need to arch back and twist their torso to achieve it comfortably and without strange stretches – it would seem more comfortable from an upright position, than a forward-leaning one.

The dynamic of this position changes, or at least it can change where previously it couldn't, if the smaller receiver places their feet forward of their partner. This gives them a more stable centre of balance, and they don't need to necessarily rely on being held in position by their partner. This adjustment lends itself far more to letting the smaller partner lean forward – an upright position with the feet forward actually makes proper penetration kind of difficult.

As before, when leaning forward, the smaller partner needs something to lean on, and it must an appropriate height (ideally no more than about a foot and half tall at most) – the great big altars won't really do, unless you turn the pose entirely into an “against the wall” type position... This is not a bad thing, and is a very legitimate option for adjusting the scene for a smaller character, but I'll talk about that position later.

From this position, the smaller partner can exhibit at least a little bit more impact on the scene – they can use the support point to push and pull as a means of having input on the rhythm and depth of the act, at least more so than the limit of their own isolated hip movements, previously.

Leaning forward, eye contact and similar forms of closeness are less feasible, but the head being thrown back, or steadfastly lowered can both show passion for what's going on, and a focus on sensation, rather than specific intimacy with their partner.

The larger giver can still exert full control of the scene if that is the intention; a hand gripping the shoulder (or neck) of the smaller partner, or using one or both hands to hold their hips and midsection, can more or less negate the smaller partner's ability to change or adjust the flow of the scene... but equally so, the giver can surrender the driving lead of the scene to their partner in this position, using only gentle touches, or removing their hands entirely, to allow the smaller partner to be the primary source of movement – something not really feasible in the upright adjustment.

Some last things to remember when adjusting for a small-sized receiver, from a same-sized doggy-style scene: If the original scene was choreographed to have one character leading the scene or being the primary source of movement in it, make sure to adjust the position in a way that matches your intention – if the smaller character is meant to be an assertive or leading participant, don't pick a means of adjusting that makes it difficult for them to still do this. If the original choreography involved moments of kissing, nuzzling or other close face contact, remember to pick a way of adjusting the scene that still allows for this, and bear in mind the tone of how you go about it – or else make sure to replace that shot with a suitable surrogate action instead; eye contact, and soft touches to the cheek, hair and neck are always good stand-ins. Lastly, doggy-style for two same-sized partners is generally very stable, but balance becomes more of a consideration once you being adapting it for a small-sized receiver; make sure to pick adjustments that are sensible for the new centre of balance, and don't leave things hanging at improbable angles or tilts.

So that's that... but what about the flip side of thing, when it is the giving or penetrating partner that is smaller in size?



There are a few ways to scale this mountain, and just as for smaller receivers, there are a handful of important considerations when adjusting a scene for a smaller giver. The two main options you have are, as before, for the smaller partner to stand up, or for the larger partner to lower themselves down. The latter tends to be a bit more awkward than it seems at first glance...

In order for the larger partner to lower their pelvis to a suitable penetration point, they cannot practically remain kneeling without engaging in an unsustainable and straining stretch. At the same time, to match the kneeling giver they likely won't be able to simply lie flat to the ground either – angle and height just aren't likely to line up well for proper penetration. It may seem tempting to have the receiver adopt a prone position – with the legs together and straight, while the giver mounts them fully at the hips, but this isn't as practical as it seems either:



The difference in hip width makes a proper mount like that too awkward for the smaller giver to achieve, and still maintain the ability to move or thrust comfortably. No matter how you try to position for proper support, the stretch for the smaller partner will be uncomfortable and largely unsustainable.

Instead, the most effective and comfortable way to adapt this pose for the smaller giver to remain kneeling is for the receiver to lie with their thighs parted moderately enough for the giver to remain between them, and with the hips raised; they're still putting a portion of their weight on their knees and toes, like this, but with something to support the raised hips, like a bedroll, this adjustment makes for an effective adaptation.


No matter how you make the adjustment, however, the first major point to make note of is that direct intimacy is almost entirely out of the question with this kind of position. While doggy-style and other similar variants can be fit to scenes of close intimacy and affection, with the right kinds of focus on upper-body contact – kissing etc., and adaptations with a small-sized receiver can be adjusted to preserve this in most cases, the same is simply not true for having a small-sized giver; there is no practical way to achieve a kiss, or even to achieve proper eye contact from any variation of this position, and even intimate touches are largely infeasible – the small-sized giver can't reach out to stroke their partner's hair or neck, nor any other good substitute for that kind of action – so if your original scene is choreographed to include that kind of close contact intimacy as a focus, or even as a present part of the sequence, the scene will need major, major changes – likely a completely different position, if the giving partner is small, because those elements simply cannot be replicated from here.

That aside, the small-sized partner's best options for showing eagerness, passion or other forms of more physical engagement with their partner are mostly reduced to emphasising the actual penetrative part of the encounter – their grip on their partner's hips, or, if they lean forward, pressing down on the small of their back.

Similarly, the larger-sized receiver is more or less left to fend for themselves, for the most part. If they work together, they might hold hands for passionate actions, since the larger partner can reach back much further than the smaller partner can reach forward. They could also achieve softer touches and strokes around the smaller partner's hair, face and upper body. Doing so would take substantial shoulder twist, however, and the character would need to put more support weight on the other arm to compensate, and also likely shift the angle of their torso slightly more vertical if the choreography made this choice – which begins, itself, to look very uncomfortable instead.

If we adapt the original pose by focusing our alterations on the smaller giver we face similar issues, though there are a couple of options in this direction as well. First, the smaller character must stand up instead of kneeling. After this, we would have to choose whether to adapt the pose to put their stance inside the receiver's, or outside it.


In the first case, the giver will end up in a position that more inclines them to lean forward, while in the latter, their centre of balance will be more inclined towards an upright position. The receiver will still need to adjust to suit the stance as well, even though we're focusing on changing the giver – their knees will need to part far enough to allow the giver space inside them, in the first case, and will need to come almost completely together – if not completely – to allow the giver to adopt a stance outside theirs, in the latter case. This in turn necessarily raises the overall height of the position in the latter case.

In either case, the resulting pose can easily convey the raw physicality of sex, and can work well for sequences that aim for showing hunger or need – but as before, the position struggles with conveying intimacy, romance or closeness at all, with even the options that exist for a same-sized pairing being harshly limited here. The partners cannot share any kind of close face intimacy with each other if it's wanted, and even making eye contact is challenging – To make it work the receiver will need to shift their body substantially, adopting a twist that will also need a raise in the angle of their torso. In turn, they are unlikely to be able to support their centre of balance on their hands on the ground any more and will need something else to support themselves with in order for the pose to make sense.

Options for meaningful activity outside the raw mechanics of the sex are limited; gripping the hips or stroking the small of the back are about all the giver can do, while the receiver may have a hand free to take care of themselves, or to encourage their partner. If they can reasonably reach back to do so with the aid of something to support their balance, then they may be able to put their free hand behind the hips/waist/bum of their partner, and contribute to the rhythm of the love-making that way, but that's about all the autonomy we've got, more or less.

So, the bottom line for doggy is that as a general position is great for raw, physically charged and body-driven sex, and if that is the focus of the scene then the adaptations you will need to make and considerations to keep in mind for smaller sized partners still work well for this. The problems come in when you wish to convey almost anything else. Same-sized partners have ways of sharing communication and intimacy throughout the act, but with a smaller partner – particularly with a smaller giving or penetrating partner – the options for sharing intimate connection are greatly stymied without a complete change of pose. If your original scene requires or contains a consistent display of closeness and intimacy alongside the physical passion and lust, then for a smaller giver with a larger receiver it may well be worth considering a different pose entirely.

One of the next most commonly used positions in intimate choreography is Cowgirl. Cowgirl is a favourite in a lot of intimate choreography, though mostly commonly in those scenes written for a female-favouring viewer audience. It's a fairly flexible pose in terms of conveyance, but it focuses almost exclusively on the receiver, who is on top. It's a pose that is often ind anger of reducing the giving partner to an almost non-participating role, which is something that should generally be avoided by conscientious writers/choreographers.



Cowgirl works well for slow, romantic scenes where shots can pan across body contours and shapes that are easily visible, and it's also an innately face-to-face pose that allows for eye contact, hand-holding and most forms of close intimacy. A fully upright cowgirl is particularly favoured in a lot of intimate scenes because it easily allows the showing off of the more 'socially acceptable' nudity, while still making it easy to disguise the more overt points of the actual sexual penetration – or not if that's what's desired. For more passionate scenes, the pose is good for conveying rhythm and momentum in ways that are highly visible, yet still largely tasteful. Where the pose begins to struggle is in particularly overtly sexual scene where efforts to convey raw physical sexuality can easily become crude-seeming or tactlessly pornographic. This is a particular problem as you increase the pace of the scene – it struggles to maintain a fast, impact pace without becoming ungainly or crude – something which doggy-style, by its own basic nature, can actually achieve quite well, in contrast.

If the top partner lies forward somewhat, the pose allows for kissing, back stroking and rubbing, and other closer contact forms of intimacy that compliment a slow or gentle scene pace, and this is best saved specifically for deliberately slower, more romantically inclined shooting, as it obscures the majority of the 'action' from the viewing camera, no mater what angle you shoot from.

In most cases, the giving partner's ability to contribute to the scene is fairly limited – they can't really move very much, at least not in a way that impacts the scene visibly, and in most cases, they won't be able to initiate many intimacies, such as kissing, without their partner doing most of the work; they cannot, for example, sit up without necessarily the pose into a lotus style position (which we'll look at later). They can use their hands, to hold hands, to touch their partner's front (upper or lower zones, depending on tone of the scene), or face and neck if the top partner obliges them. If they want to contribute to the rhythm of the intimacy itself, they'll generally need to put hands on their partner's hips or behind, if they can reach.

When we substitute in a smaller-sized receiver to this pose, we hit the same problem that we've encountered elsewhere – namely that the hip width across a larger giving partner makes the pose potentially difficult or uncomfortable for the smaller partner to straddle properly, in most situations. So what are our options?



Tara, stop that! We're not looking at “unexpected opportunities with smaller partners” until later...

With a smaller receiver on top, there isn't much that the giver can do to change the pose in any helpful way – the adaptations must largely be made on the smaller partner's side of the equation here. You have a couple of main options. The most direct adaptation is to shift the top partner's stance from attempting to kneel on the ground, to simply standing on it, astride their partner.



This adjustment works by giving the receiver a solid centre of balance, as long as they remain upright, and saves them from having to stretch their thighs into what would otherwise be an uncomfortably wide force. It preserves all of the other elements of the pose that might come across from original choreography with same-sized partners, and it's a simple solution. It is, however.... inelegant. It looks and feels unclassy, and even if the scene is focused on intimate or romantic elements, attention will still be drawn inevitably to the raw mechanics of the pose, which may be an important consideration.

In this position, the other main difference is that, while the receiver's balance is solid and they will still more or less be the one required to be in control for setting rhythm and pace, they end up more or less sitting down on their partner – so where in the original same-sized pose, most of the motion would come from the hips, and the top partner could easily control depth of penetration... here, the motion will actually need to come from the knees instead, and the top partner's depth control is somewhat arrested (short of actively dismounting); these are factors that must be accounted for if the you choose to adjust the pose in this manner.

Using one hand for support, behind, on the bottom partner's leg, can help alleviate the latter problem, visually, as it gives the smaller partner an extra point of support and weight distribution. It can also shift the movement source at least partially back towards the hips, but the arm in question needs to be assisting there, and should look like it's taking weight and aiding motion.

The bottom partner will generally have all of the same capabilities they have in the original pose, here, but may have better access overall; reaching the face and neck for tender touches will be easier with a smaller receiver, and so these may become appealing choices to replace other actions in the adjusted pose if necessary. On the flip side, depending on the tone, the giving partner is in a much stronger position here to control the depth of the love-making, and can, in a more convincing manner than before, attempt to control the rhythm of the scene by using their hands at their partner's hips.

Another option for adjusting the scene – if you want to keep the receiver in a safer and more controlled pose, and keep the source of rhythm and movement predominately at the hips, is to adjust the top partner so that they are still kneeling, but not touching the ground. Here, their weight in on their partner's thighs and hips, with their feet on the inside of the larger partner's legs, to counterbalance in a stable way.



If you adjust the position this way, the top partner's centre of balance is more inclined to lean forward, rather than back, and they are able to control both the rhythm and the depth of their love-making through their hips and thighs. In this version of the pose, the top partner must be leading the rhythm, if anyone is – the giving partner cannot meaningfully do so, due to the position of their smaller partner's legs giving them much more power to easily counter anything the giver does, if they wish to, despite their smaller size. Bear this in mind when choreographing where motion comes from and who controls the rhythm and pace.

When adjusting to this pose, it will also be necessary for the giving partner to stretch their legs out straighter and flatter than the original pose may have used, but other than that there are few direct alterations that the bottom partner needs to make. If, in the original pose choreography, the top partner was depicted leaning backwards, to put weight on their hands behind them (this is a common shift as it further shows off the (most commonly female) upper body to a watching camera), it should be noted that that move is not practical or even really feasible for a smaller character using this adjustment, and a motion like that may need to be replaced. A suitable substitute might be to have the smaller partner simply arch upwards and stretch their hands above their head, inviting the giver to touch them in this manner instead – they could also use their hands to touch themselves like this, however, in almost every case, if you have the option of picking between choreography that invites one partner to touch the other, and choreography that is just one participant touching themselves, the former is what you should pick – shared contact is the far better choice.

Since the inclination for the smaller partner will be to lean forward, supporting themselves thought hand contact with their partner is an ideal way to give weight and balance to the pose while also communicating intimacy, else-wise, both partners' options for communication and contact are about the same as the original pose.

Both of these adjustments run the risk of looking a bit awkward if not shot carefully, but for a smaller receiver in particular, the pose works very well if you adjust it to let them lean forward more completely, into more pronounced closeness with their partner. By leaning forward, they are able to put their feet comfortable on the ground without stretching too badly, but can avoid any sensation of ungainly awkwardness. The bottom partner, in this situation, would offer best compliment to the adjustment by shifting their legs to be closer together and slightly raised, with the feet flat to the ground.



If making this adjustment, the top partner's actual hip position will likely shift forward slightly, and this should be accounted for. An extension of this will mean that kissing becomes feasible again, if desired for the scene, which is another positive. Like this, both partners can contribute comfortably to the rhythm and pace of the actual love-making – motion comes from the hips and thighs for the top partner, pressing back against firmly planted feet, along with the ability to rest their weight on their partner's chest for extra stability. They can use their hands to add to this motion and emphasise it by gripping their partner's shoulders, or they can easily keep their hands free to express other forms of closeness – hand-holding, face touching, etc., are all comfortable and feasible here, if needed for the scene.

For the larger partner, they can participate in the movement and rhythm in this position by using their hands to guide their partner's hips or grabbing their bum, depending on the emotion you want to convey – if you put more weight into an arm movement like this, you can show the bottom partner guiding or leading the rhythm, or show it being left to the top partner if the arm is loose or gentle. By having their feet more planted and their knees closer together and raised slightly, the bottom partner is also able to realistically contribute a bit more hip motion – the motion necessarily becomes closer to horizontal here, rather than directly upward, and will push their smaller partner towards them, rather than away – something that must be noted and borne in mind when adapting the choreography.

In this pose, the larger partner may be best assisted for comfort and flexibility, to have something to support their neck and shoulders a little – they can lie flat and lift their head as needed but the pose will look far better and feel more natural if they have something – the most obvious and simple option being the pillow-end of a bedroll – to support them. As before, their hands have the full range of freedom to express any type of emotion or physical intimacy desired with their partner – though with the smaller partner lying close, shots that show holding or stroking the back become more appealing than before.

As an added bonus, also manage to avoid having the pose look awkward or ungainly, like this – it's easy to shoot from a variety of angles without looking crude or unclassy.

So, what about having a smaller-sized giver for cowgirl poses? Well, that's more challenging. It actually becomes quite hard to convey romantic or intimate scenes with a smaller bottom partner in this pose. A direct transposition will definitely not do.



If we were to just translate directly, well, no-one is going to have any fun at all. There's no comfortable means of penetration here – and there's not much the smaller-sized partner can do about it. To maintain a cowgirl position, the top partner would need to lower their hips dramatically, and then they'd need to be in a potion where they could comfortably maintain rhythmic motion. This is a difficult position to make look good with a smaller bottom partner.

So what can we do? There aren't a lot of options for the smaller partner – any method we might use to make the actual penetration work will only make it more difficult or awkward for both parties. Instead, we would need to focus on the receiving partner. In this case, we need to find a way to comfortably lower the groin and still allow for comfortable movement. Simply widening the knees won't really work on its own – the stretch would be too dramatic to work without looking ridiculous. The top partner cannot achieve anything leaning forward, either.

If we adjust the pose to have the top partner lean back, it becomes feasible, but they will need to lean back substantially in order to achieve a position where they are both stable, and no longer an ungodly thigh stretch – though it will still be very broad even then, and pretty murderous on the knees as well. Feasible, yes, but not good.

In order to make the pose easier and more comfortable for the top partner, we need to bring the knees forward, and closer in to the bottom partner, while letting the feet spread out a little further, to take the pressure off the knees; they will still, as with all of these poses, have to rest a decent portion of their weight on their hands, for support and balance, but now the pose can actually be workably comfortable.



With these adjustments, the pose now works, and looks decently good from a number of shots. The top partner will need to be placing a decent amount of their weight on their hands for support, so the arms should look like they are taking weight. They will also be necessarily contributing to the movement rhythm of the scene – motion will come from the top partner almost exclusively, who will be relying on their arms for a good portion of it; pushing forward and up with the arms is what helps press the groin down against their partner and emphasise whatever motions they make with their hips.

What this means for the tone and atmosphere of the scene however, is that our options are fairly limited in what we can convey well. Believe it or not, you won't be making eye contact from this pose – the need for the larger partner to lean back and the scale of the smaller partner functionally blocks them from looking each other in the eye in this position. Add to that the fact that the larger partner, usually the one more free to express with their hands, cannot use their arms at all like this. The smaller partner has a very limited reach with their hands as well, and while they have some options, the net result is that close intimacy and romantic overtones are virtually impossible to capture well like this. If the original scene was romantically charged, with kisses and other forms of close contact, then it is almost certainly a better choice to pick a different pose entirely, when making an adaptation for a smaller giving partner.

Raw passion, and overtly sexual cinematography don't suffer quite as much. The top partner necessarily sets the rhythm and pace, but they are quite capable of doing so to whatever degree the scene demands, and having their hands precluded means that the most obvious and overt motion in the scene will be coming directly from the sexual action itself, undisguised by anything else – there's almost nothing else to focus on, here, so it works well for depicting raw bodily need and physicality. If you're using a frontal shot of any sort to show this off (as would be common in this instance, since it lets you show clear view of the (most commonly female) top partner's chest as well), but don't want to show the actual sexual anatomy, then having the giving partner offer a helping hand during the shot can coincidentally hide what you need to, without seeming to actually obscure anything. I wish I had more to say about this pose type, but the truth is that it becomes quite restricted in its utility, with a smaller giving partner.

One more commonly used position that's 'stand alone' before we start getting some more props involved. Spooning positions are, most commonly, used in scenes with a slower and often more tender pace, and don't lend themselves well to fast or overt sexual choreography unless you adapt them to the more traditionally pornographic variants.

Spooning positions can be set up in a number of different ways that will substantially change the tone of the pose, but generally speaking, a pose of close body-pressed intimacy invites slower, more intimate motion. The lovers can usually intertwine their legs and rub and caress each others' feet during the intimacy; the receiving partner can easily reach back to stroke most parts of their partner's body with their top hand, or use it to stimulate themselves; the giving partner can reach all of the interesting places on their partner's body with their own top hand, as desired; and while jokes are rife about getting horrendous dead arms from this position, the bottom arms can be moved into various positions that don't, in fact, pin or crush them, and provide access to other intimate touches or holds.



One of the most important aspects of these positions is actually that both partners can mutually reach most of the same points on each other's bodies at the same time – this allows for both intimate hand-holding, and also intimate and erotic 'guiding', to show mutual participation in intimate touches. For example – this is a rear-entry position, but the giving partner can also reach the receiving partner's groin from the front; so can the receiver, and having one guide the other here, showing what they need, is another layer of communication during the act that adds to the feel of it being two individuals doing something together, rather than one doing and one being done to.

This is not to say that it's entirely ill-suited to vigorous, fast-paced scenes, but for them to work well, the focus must end up being more on the act itself, rather than the intimate connection – so the act itself must be shot to draw that focus. This means the receiving partner would generally raise their top leg further, possibly planting their foot behind their partner's legs, while the giving partner may lean further back at more of an angle; this better makes clear physicality of the act. This is the version of the position you see most commonly in pornographic choreography.


This version of the position allows both partners to engage in much more energetic movement without the difficulty that a more close-locked body position can cause; both can actively push against one another freely without complication, and contribute somewhat to the control of the depth and pace of the love-making – though the giving partner has notably more control in this case.

It's not a tactful pose, and not one that can be used with incomplete models – even if the giving partner places a hand to obscure their partner's genitals, there's simply no real hiding the bits and pieces here, unless you use a shot that shows nothing at all and self-defeats.

The other point worth mentioning is that, generally speaking, this is not a comfortable position. More than the original pose, both partners will need to dedicate some of their attention to supporting themselves, and that occupies their arms, losing out on other opportunities for intimacy. A scene choreographer might want a kiss in this pose, to balance out the cruder elements, but achieving that is a crunch and is going to leave someone, possibly both, with a sore back or neck before long.

My personal opinion on this is that if the involved partners want something drastically more energetic, raw, physical or fast-paced and hungry than a more comfortable spooning position allows, they're far more likely to just change positions entirely – this style of pose is designed entirely for the sake of a viewing audience, not the participants, which is something worth bearing in mind if you consider making use of it.

So, what happens if we substitute in a small-sized receiver to this pose.



In the first image – Hey! Woah, woah, guys, cool it! Starting to look a bit dubious there. All fictional models represented herein are not real people, but if they were they would be mature consenting adults engaging in informed roleplay, I swear. Ahem. That's better.

It's a good place to point out, however, the extreme difference that hands make to a scene. Here, just a small number of changes to the orientation and posing of hands and feet – without even changing the pose itself – the entire tone and feel of the scene can be changed utterly based on what you do with the hands and feet of your models. I touched on this earlier, and have mentioned it lightly throughout, but this seemed like a good situation to give a tangible side-by-side. In the first image, the larger partner grips the raised ankle firmly, and envelopes the smaller partner's other hand entirely, giving the impression of pinning it to the ground. Their lower leg similarly pins the smaller partner's leg. The smaller partner reaches away with their free hand, dragging at the ground. These little details come together to create an image that can easily read as force or non-consent, or might be useful if restraint and helplessness was a deliberate element of the intimacy.

Conversely, in the second image, the larger partner supports the raised leg still, but it is a gentler hand pose that also works in some intimate contact – rubbing the sole of the foot. Their other hand is there not to pin, but to hold and support the smaller partner's hand, and the smaller partner is the one gripping on there. They use their free hand to reach for their partner, rather than away, adding intimate contact, and their lower leg is in functionally the same position, but now it is clearly lose and free. Small details that completely change the scene into one of intimate passion instead. Hands and what you do with them are an incredibly important aspect of any intimate choreography – you cannot forget this.

That aside, back to the actual pose in question. Having spoken about the elements of the more overt positioning, I'll leave that be and focus on the more subtle form that is more likely to be used in intimate choreography outside of pornographic material. So, let's try this again, starting with a smaller receiving partner.



So, while a direct translation may not look too troublesome, at first glance, the size difference here has a more pronounced impact than it first seems, and the result is that you're just not going to be achieving any kind of workable penetration like this, without substantial adaptations. There isn't any real way for the giving partner's hips to lower further, and attempting to compensate for this with simple re-angling isn't going to allow for any kind of functional movement between the partners.

In order to achieve a position where sex can comfortably happen, here, the receiver more or less has to lift their hips well off the ground; from a side-on position this is not easy, or comfortable to maintain. The giver can assist by partially lifting the smaller partner (like in the above images), but as well as occupying a hand, that would also become tiring quickly in this position. Alternatively, the smaller partner can 'hang' by putting one leg over their partner's far enough to lift their groin to a workable position, and supporting themselves between that knee while resting their weight on one shoulder – but this is still unlikely to be comfortable. This makes the pose more overt, by necessity, which will have an impact on the tone of the scene as well, but it does allow both partners to contribute more or less equally to the rhythm and pace of the action. As before, any attempts at kissing or close face intimacy will be a rather uncomfortable crunch for the larger partner – it's doable, but it's unlikely to look good unless shot very carefully. A slightly lesser known truth about shooting scenes like this in intimate choreography (and one I personally hate), is that these types of contacts are often shot in multiple parts which don't align; they'll want a kiss, so they shoot the actors kissing comfortably, chest up, because no sex can really be happening while that's going on, then cut back to action shots where that kiss would clearly be impossible, and so on... don't ever do this; it's grossly unprofessional, and a lot more visible that a lot of people who make that kind of content seem to think.

This aside, simply adapting this position into one that works still leaves your characters in a position that isn't ideal, and suggests other options. The practicality of the situation is that if your large giver and small receiver couple are looking for a position that starts like a simple spooning position, in moving to suit themselves, they'll be far more inclined to shift into other positions entirely.

The larger partner will be naturally inclined to lean over the smaller partner, and tilt their hips towards them as well, while the smaller partner may be more inclined, instead of raising one leg up, to roll their hips forward as well, to assist the angle – this just leads both partners to adopt a version of a giver-on-top prone entry position instead. If the giver is instead assisting their partner to lift up, the inclination will be more towards simply puling them over on top – at the same time, the smaller partner, if being assisted in that way, will naturally be inclined to twist their upper body back towards their partner as well, which suggests the same shift in position. The result is that where two same-sized partners might move to adopt a spooning position, a pair with a small-sized receiver may well be naturally inclined to adopt one of these two positions instead. A last alternative, if maintaining the side-by-side relation is considered necessary, would be for the smaller partner to settle onto their back, and place both legs up and over their larger-partner's hips – they still have to lift their own hips off the ground by a fair amount, but done this way they have more support, coming from both legs, and the weight on their upper back and shoulders is more evenly supported as well, making the pose far more comfortable and easy to maintain.



As well as being more stable and comfortable for the smaller partner, lying on their back with both legs over their partner's hips makes it easier for the larger partner to access their body in a comfortable way, while also allowing the receiver the same freedom with their own hands and creating a good set up for intimate guidance and touch-based communication – though it does make shooting a satisfying angle harder than the more overt versions of the pose. The tone of the scene can be changed substantially by whether the smaller partner keeps their legs together or apart; parting them draws more attention to the sexual action itself, and may potentially allow more to be seen, depending on the shooting, while keeping the knees closed creates a more tasteful tone, good for slower or more romantic sequences. If the larger partner puts their lower leg forward slightly, it can give the receiver some extra support; it creates a slightly more upward angled hip motion which is worth bearing in mind.

Though I can't comment on this too much – this adaptation is one which becomes unavoidably overt, regardless of your shooting angle, and requires complete models to work, if the smaller partner is male – there's no good way to tastefully obscure what needs to be there, and still achieve a satisfying shot.

For the larger partner, this adaptation has most of the same issues as the original pose – they can reach their partner for kissing or other intimate face contact, but it's a crunch. If the smaller partner is positioned to lie alongside but slightly angled outward from their partner, this angle is alleviated slightly. Their supporting arm will still be free enough to make intimate touches around their partner's head and shoulders – though much further risks obscuring the shot. One thing that is important to note here is that a kiss in this position will more or less necessarily be with the smaller partner leaning their face up and back, and the larger partner bending their head down to meet – this kind of kiss is nearly always characterised as a slow, intimate and above all romantic style of kiss. This isn't likely to be a problem, however, since the position itself virtually a slower pace and rhythm – it's not conducive to fast or frenetic love-making as you might find in a more rawly physical scene.

For the other two options that you might adapt this pose into, the first – both partners rolling onto their fronts, creates a prone position that is best suited to physically-focused, hungry, animalistic or raw sexual scenes. Both partners end up strongly restricted in their ability to act or contribute to the scene beyond the act of the sex itself, and the position provides good set up for fast, hard or deep action. The larger partner must support their own weight with their arms and legs here, or they'll simply crush and obscure their partner. The smaller partner has very little room to move or act at all, by contrast. The most intimate contact that can be managed, outside of the sex act itself, is hand-holding – even eye contact isn't really workable here. If your original scene was intended to be all about the sex, in the physical and raw sense, this is probably the adaptation to pick.

The other adaptation, with both partners instead moving to their backs, puts us into what is more closely an adapted version of a lying reverse cowgirl, but it is a pose that is inviting of a slow pace and close intimacy, so may be ideal if that was tone tone of the original spooning scene. This pose will generally be much more comfortable for both partners (unless your larger partner is a particularly skinny wizard who will be discomfited by the weight), and gives both partners full access to all manner of intimate touches and caresses, both independently of each other, and to guide with hands together if desired.

Much of the power to control the rhythm, pace and depth in this adaptation comes from the smaller partner, especially if they brace one or both feet, either on the ground, if they can reach, or on their partner's thighs. Movement from the smaller partner would flow from the feet and the hips, and the rhythm would be closer to a vertical angle. If, on the other hand, you allow the giving partner to lead, they lack much power to direct the pace with their hips alone, and so would more easily direct the pace with one or both hands on the receiver's hips, functionally guiding the scene by moving their partner, rather than thrusting up at them. In this case, the angle of movement would be closer to horizontal. This difference, based on who is guiding or controlling the motion, is worth accounting for.

This adaptation also invites hugs, and if the giver has something to support their head and shoulders (the ever helpful bedroll, etc.), then they can manage some face-to-face intimacy as well; worth noting here, though, that such contact will necessarily tone itself as romantic, and possibly a little playful, due to the angles involved.

So then, what about when it's the giving partner that is small?

When we attempt a direct switch here, with a smaller sized giving partner, we end up with a fairly familiar situation. In short, there's just no practical way that penetration is happening here, and the position is wholly unsuitable for any kind of intimate contact either – like this it just doesn't work.

In adapting it, you face many of the same problems that you face when looking to adapt other small-giver rear-entry positions, and all of the same considerations as discussed for them, above, apply here as well.

There simply isn't much the receiving partner can do to make the pose more functional, without changing to another position entirely. The small-sized giver only really has one practical option for adapting this position into something that can function, but it will still be quite limited.

Basically, for this pose, the only real option for adaptation is for the smaller partner to kneel, shifting to an upright position in the process – as as with other adaptations of this pose, the result is that it's not really a spoons pose at all any more. If the smaller partner kneels, however, finding the right height to make things work may be awkward; for a small-sized character like a halfling or gnome, kneeling up properly will put them out of good coupling height in the other direction, while lower kneeling poses begin to create uncomfortable, awkward or, it must be considered, photogenically unappealing situations.

Spreading the knees or thighs wide enough to accommodate their larger partner will end up looking unsustainable or crude, but adopting a more reasonable kneeling position makes actual physical motion (that might actually be achieving something at least) more or less impossible. So what can we do? The most comfortable and workable solution is for the giver to shift one leg forward of their partner, putting it between their legs, so they're more or less straddling the receiver's lower leg – this allows better balance, and a tighter 'lock'. This is easy enough for same-sized partners to do, but for a smaller giver, the straddle may actually be more challenging to make, and may also create a bad angle for penetration. To help, the receiver may need to straighten their lower leg almost completely, and bend their upper leg up further than would otherwise be necessary for a larger partner – these two tweaks resolve the problems caused by the size difference.


From here, visual contact and communication is much more comfortable for both partners, and the tone of the scene can be controlled more flexibly too. Movement can only come from the giving partner, and in a pose like this it's unlikely that a smaller partner will actually have both knees down fully – the result is that they'll be putting part of their weight on one thigh instead (with the knee and foot on that side provided support, but not actual force resistance), and this will affect how they move; keep it in mind. While the smaller giver will naturally control the pacing of the scene, the receiving partner has full access to their body for gripping, holding and intimate touches, so they can contribute to the motion of the scene by guiding and complementing, as in other similar adjustments. The pose is well suited to faster, more raw sequences; the smaller partner may be inclined to grip or grab forcefully naturally, which compliments a physically-focused pace, or, as our model seems intent on demonstrating, they might be tempted toward some spanking, if that's what you want to go for.

Surprisingly, this adjustment can lend itself to slower and more intimate moments as well, with a bit of careful shooting; the pose allows for good shots of the softer curves and gentler lines of the participants, and coupled with a slower overall pace and more intimate hand contact from the receiving partner (intimate face touches or back stroking are both good and quite feasible in this position) the adjustment can be made to work for more romantic or intimately focused scenes – though it still may be better opting for a better-suited position if that's the goal.

I said only one more, but there's actually one other pose I want to look at first... major prop and support positions next, after this one. Last unassisted pose I want to look at is the lotus type position set.

This one isn't used as much as others when shooting sexual intimacy, regardless of tone or atmosphere, though it can lend itself to almost any style with about the same degree of aplomb. The main reason it's less used is because it's kind of hard to shoot well, in a way that is visually appealing to a viewing audience.



This position is all about closeness of physical contact; if you have a scene where you want to communicate an unquenchable need to be close and to be in contact – to press yourself to your partner and intertwine yourself with them until you lose one another in the sheer press of limbs and bodies locked together, then this is a position very worth considering, because that's what it's all about.

That said, mostly all either partner is left to do, in this position, is to hold, grip and stroke their partner in various ways. Face to face intimacy is easy here, and any amount of kissing and/or neck intimacy works well too. More romantic shooting may see the partners lean back from one another just slightly, to share kisses, nuzzle cheeks or press foreheads while they engage in slower, rhythmic love-making. Passionate scenes will generally call for a tighter embrace and more forceful body motion, lip-to-lip where kissing gives way to neck kisses and bites, and other similar play. For scenes all about the physical act and the rawness of the sex itself, and for shooting to show more action, the partners can lean back further, opening up the pose to show both bodies more clearly as they move – direct face to face intimacy can give way in turn to heated eye contact or impassioned head-throws.

In any situation here, the movement comes primarily from the receiving partner, and it tends to be less overt than in other positions; it comes from the cycling of the hips and the clenching and relaxing of the leg lock – these are the sources of your movement, while the giving partner can only usually assist in this by guiding and complimenting the motion with their arms and hands on their partner's back and waist; while supporting much of their partner's weight, they can't actually do much with their hips. Specifically in a more open shooting, the giving partner is well suited to having something to lean back against, while the receiving partner may support their upper body with their hands about their partner's shoulders, or the back of their neck if they're light (this won't look good with a larger or bulkier receiving partner). Alternatively, they can lean back substantially, plant their hands on the ground behind them, and really focus the scene directly on the movement force of their hips, and the sex act itself – doing so gives them much greater power to move and the angle of motion can be shifted substantially as needed here without it becoming strained or awkward.

While there are only a handful of considerations when adapting this pose for smaller partners, they nevertheless can change the dynamic of the scene greatly. Starting with converting this position for a smaller receiving partner.



A more or less direct translation works passably well, with a small receiver. After accoutningg for simple realignments, there are only a few major points worth taking into consideration. The first is that, due to the size difference, a proper leg lock is unlikely to really be feasible for the smaller partner here, and that needs to be adjusted to account; its' not actually a problem for the pose itself, however, since the small partner can still grip with their thighs and calves, even if they can't lock ankles all the way; doing what they can while still being comfortable should be the consideration here. After that, we find that the neck or shoulder embrace that was either fully enveloping, or else required leaning back, now becomes almost essential for the smaller partner – though using a finger lock around the back of the neck looks and feels much better in this configuration.

The most dramatic effect that the size change will have on the pose, however, is the style of motion that you end up with. While the motion can remain as it (most likely) was for the original choreography, with a smaller receiving partner it's much more naturally inclined to shift from a mostly horizontal with some vertical motion, into a rhythm that more keenly emphasises the vertical motion instead; don't ignore this. This is added to by the fact that the giving partner is now in a much better position to assist in the movement – they can feasibly guide, and potentially even lift and support their smaller partner, even to the extent that they can effectively take control of the movement and the pacing instead. Don't forget that having the giving partner take full control of the motion and rhythm of the scene will necessarily change the tone being communicated as well, since to do so they will functionally be man-handling their partner; regardless of intent, this has a tendency to come across a certain way, and will influence the feeling of the scene.

Kissing is still possible, but as with other similar situations it now requires deliberate effort from both partners to achieve, rather than being something that one can simply do to the other, as with same-sized partners. For example: if in your original scene you have the receiver playfully kissing their partner by surprise or on their own, that sequence would need specific attention as they cannot really do that as a smaller-sized participant – instead they need to reach up or pull their partner down, and invite the action, which in most cases would shift the feel of the action from playful more towards romantic.

Alternatively, the smaller partner can support themselves by kneeling on their partner's thighs instead. This is similar in principle to the same adjustment mentioned for cowgirl poses before – it gives the smaller partner more control over the depth of penetration, and the pacing of the the scene.


In this situation, motion comes from flexing the thighs and knees, and it's going to necessarily be a mostly vertical motion. The smaller partner is a little more raised here, so kissing and similar intimacies are easier too. The giving partner can still attempt to guide the pace and rhythm of the scene, but the small partner is ultimately the one in control of it here. Tone-wise, this is the counterbalance to the effect caused by the larger partner carrying or controlling the smaller during the intimacy – this is a 'safer' position for the small partner. There won't be the same depth of penetration here, but without putting too crude a point on it, for a small-sized partner, that is not likely to be considered a problem.

Leaning back to open up the pose also works well enough as well, even with a smaller receiver, however they won't be able to plant their hands on the ground here and will have to use their partner's thighs instead.



While this lean back may risk looking a bit crude with same-sized partners, here it can subtly avoid that. If you want to keep control of the scene's rhythm and motion firmly with the receiver, this adjustment does so, as well as naturally maintaining the same innate motion direction of the original pose with same-sized partners, with room for alteration in either direction. This is complimented well if the giving partner has something to lean back against as well. The down side for this position, for the receiver, is that their hands will be necessarily occupied supporting their weight, and their upper body is apart enough that face-based intimacy, other than eye contact, is off the table too; this means that almost all of their contribution to the scene comes directly from what they are doing with their hips, and the focus will be naturally drawn there unless you counterbalance it with something else from the giving partner.

The giving partner, in this situation is free to appreciate their partner's body and the actions that they are taking, but they also have hands free to hold, touch, stroke or guide their partner too; one hand guiding the hips will keep them connected to the action and help them maintain a sense of contributing to it, and they can also touch their partner's chest, groin and face as desired and as the tone you want to set requires. Or they can just sit back, watch and enjoy, if that's what you want.

A major problem with lotus poses, when dealing with smaller-sized partners, is that it becomes very difficult to work in a satisfying way the other way around – let's look at a small-sized giver instead:



So, the main difficulty is that it's just really hard to make this position look or feel satisfying or good, with a small-sized giver. Assuming that we're all hale adventurers and there's no real danger of actually crushing anyone, the position is still awkward to convey in a way that translates into compelling visual media.

Pacing, rhythm and movement angle/direction is flexible here; it will be controlled by the receiving partner, and come from the hips directly, and the giving partner has little option but to hang on. Kissing is not really feasible any more – with the larger partner also being on top, the distance is just too great to manage – however, there are other things the small-sized partner might be able to do with their lips, if they are so inclined. Attention to the larger partner's chest and torso is much more accessible for this pairing than for other configurations, so it may be a good idea to make use of that if using this position; such activity first well with overtly sexual and intensely passionate scenes, but only really mesh to a lesser extent with slower or more romantically inclined ones.

One important point to note here is that unless the receiving partner has something to lean against, they are going to need to put weight back on their hands, removing their ability to use them in the scene. If you're going to make this adjustment, then giving the larger partner something to lean back on and support their body with is more or less essential unless you want the sole focus of the scene to be the receiving partner's front, and the movement of their hips alone.

Unfortunately, there just aren't any really viable other options for adjusting the pose, here; if this adjustment doesn't shoot well or feel satisfying, or doesn't match the tone intended by the original choreography, then your only option may be to scrap using this position and insert a completely different position instead, for this pairing.

So, on to the prop-assisted poses. First up, I want to look at standing doggy positions; like doggy style, but the participants are standing up, more or less, with the receiving partner bent over a conveniently appropriate height object – such as a sacrificial altar, I suppose. This one is used for all of the same sorts of reasons you might use a regular doggy-style pose, but it moves the position off the floor, which is often desired, with the added bonus of it presenting a way to ground the participants in the surroundings of their scene, at least a little bit. It's also better on your knees.



This position is due most of the same commentary as basic doggy-style, so I won't repeat that, however, there are some other considerations to take into account here. This pose defines itself, more or less, by the fact that you rest your weight on the supporting object, so some of the intimate-sharing options that work for doggy style will actually end up fighting against the flow of this pose. Because the giving partner essentially has the receiver pinned against the prop, it naturally creates a much more giver-dominant atmosphere to the scene unless you work to subvert that with your other choreography; in basic doggy style, the receiver still has a handful of options for getting out of the situation if they truly wish to, however the majority of even those are all tacitly but tangibly removed by the addition of the prop – remember this when setting the tone for the scene.

Focus on raw physicality and overt sexual activity are what this pose does best, and it does so naturally; fierce passion is easy to communicate from the giver, but harder to capture from the receiver's direction, since their options for movement or communication with their partner are limited – movement and position of the head and the intensity of grip in the hands are your main tools here, for the receiver.

If you want to spin this in a slower and more romantic way, it's doable, but it will always maintain that undertone of raw-animal sex to it even so. This can be useful and intentional of course. The giver can use gentle touches and strokes on their partner's back to convey this – shots that focus on the curves of the receiver's back also help this atmosphere. The giver can even lean forward all the way to cover their partner, for erotic kissing down the back as well.

When we start thinking about smaller-sized partners, however, we come to an obvious first problem.



This is a difficult issue no matter what direction you come at it from. Once again we're in a situation where the larger partner will need to kneel down, or the smaller partner will need to hop up in some way, but in three out of four cases doing so is nigh on unworkable:



If we adjust these poses for the larger partner to kneel, then we're functionally back at the same positions discussed above (doggy variants), with all of the same considerations that we examined then, but with some added problems. In the case of a small giver, the more upright position that using the table-prop creates makes actually engaging in the act itself more challenging – there's not likely any solid penetration happening there. For a small receiver, though the prop gives them something to support their body against and removes any need to rely on being held by their partner, that same prop makes shooting eh scene at all difficult. It creates an obstruction and a block which you need to choreograph around, and in both of these cases, the smaller partner and the lowered pose make thee prop more of a difficulty than a boon; you're just not going to shoot a satisfying scene like this, most likely, and still be able to really see what's going on.

If, instead, we move the smaller partners up, our options are severely limited – with a small giver, getting into position to engage their partner is a trial, as is staying there, if they don't have a step ladder. They'll likely need to support themselves by holding onto their partner's body, leaving them no freedom to do anything but cling tight and, er, get to work. The larger receiver's options in this are mostly synonymous to the similar doggy-style position discussed earlier, but once again our options for what sorts of shots can be used is limited baby the physical prop object. This third pose has the other downside for choreography in that it's just not a particularly photogenic or appealing pose to work with, visually.

The fourth I kept aside for a different reason, since it can work passably well, but it risks looking a little dubious:



Come on guys, I just warned you both about making these poses look too sus...

But the point remains; if anyone wondered why I took time to mention the inherent elements of vulnerability and helplessness in this position for the receiving partner, it is because here, for a small receiver in particular, this effect is magnified greatly, and you have to be aware of this and how it can affect the tone of the scene you're composing. While the receiver for this pose, between same-sized partners, still has a couple of options, the small-sized receiver has basically none at all – short of magic or other intervention, this pose is a pin that renders them completely helpless; their feet can't touch the ground, and they have no leverage at all to take lead with the scene, or to get out of it.

With that note out of the way, this position can actually work as a scene option, in ways that the other three don't really manage to; the prop isn't the terrible obstruction here that it is for kneeling poses, and while there isn't any escaping the giver-dominant nature of the position, it's perfect for that if that is what you want. A raw, sexually focused scene is what will occur naturally here, and it's what the pose works best for, regardless of your partner sizes, but if this sequence is part of something that requires a little more intimacy or closeness and connection, you have a few options:

The smaller partner can still reach back to their partner – a hand on the hip can connect them to the rhythm of the scene and let them contribute, or guide it with the larger partner following their lead, if you want them to be the one directing the pace. Alternatively, they may be able to reach upward instead, to stroke their partner's chest, neck or cheek – eye contact is difficult, but manageable with a strong back arch and a twist, though actual kissing would take a fairly strenuous crunch from the giver as well, to achieve. The giving partner also has free reign to use their hands in ways that can convey the intended atmosphere of the scene – hair stroking, back rubs, and other gentle touches in sensitive or erotic places can all be used to counterbalance the roughness of the base pose.

So much for over-the-table. While we've got the sacrificial alter here, however, let's look briefly at on-the-table too.

This is the situation where your giving partner stays standing, while your receiver lies back, using the conveniently sized sacrificial altar as a support to help make things work. The pose only really works if the sacrificial altar in question is roughly the height of your giving partner's groin – conveniently, for creating scenes that use this pose, it always is, more or less – however do bear the consideration in mind. If you're using a prop that you've previously established the proportions of in the external world or otherwise, and it's not right, then find another prop or pick a different pose – folks will notice a miss-fit or a scale change hacked in for the sake of the scene, and it will not look good.



Unsurprisingly a lot about this pose variant has the same considerations that missionary poses have, and I won't go over all of that again – however, there are a few key points that are easy to miss or not realise.

By the nature of the position, it looks a lot like a missionary pose from the waist up, but it has an inherently more upright nature, for the giving partner – pressing in close and lying down for full contact can and will usually be awkward and won't translate well; it may not look like it at first, but kissing (face to face) is actually a lot harder in this pose than an actual lying down one and, in general, making the giving partner bend down at almost right angles won't end up looking or feeling good for the scene choreography either – the pose pictured is about as far as your giver will really want to lean forward, and still have the position come out well.

The tone and pace of this pose is very versatile, much like missionary poses can be, though it leans more towards the physical-erotic than it does the intimate-romantic side of the scale. More-so than most positions, what the receiver does with their legs will have a major impact on the tone of the scene, and the pace that it naturally suggests, and changing the leg positioning drastically changes the way the scene is likely to look and feel, and the tone it naturally leans into:



For smaller partners, this position goes to both extremes: it will need only very minor adjustments and extra considerations if the receiver is the smaller one, as it translates across reasonably well with the difficulties posed by the smaller character's size being mostly nullified by the table prop, and the considerations that remain being the same as those mentioned for other face-to-face positions. On the other hand...



Working with a smaller giving partner is basically a non-started here. It simply cannot work regardless of what you do to adapt this position: if you bring the larger partner down, then you're back at one of the other 'simple' positions, and have removed the prop entirely. Similarly, if the small giver jumps up, then you are effectively just using one of the other 'simple' poses as well, as though you were on flat ground. In the case of a small giver, the scene simply becomes a different pose, whether it is on the table prop, or beside it – make sure to pick a position that matches the tone and pace that the original scene was aiming for.

For a small-sized receiver, there isn't too much that needs to be noted – as with other similar poses, make sure to pay attention to how much further the smaller partner needs to stretch their knees and thighs to accommodate the larger partner and make the same or similar positions compared to a same-sized participant.

While the pose is heavily geared towards being giver-dominant and letting them control the pace of the scene, the receiver can contribute to, or guide, the pace and rhythm of motion in this position as long as they have something to push and pull against (and as long as the giver co-operates, of course) – the more giver-upright inclination of the pose makes guiding through contact with their partner impractical.



A small-sized receiver can more easily put their heels up on the edge of the prop near their behind in this position than they could for other poses that more invite the giver to move above them; this gives them a solid anchor to press against, and also allows them to effectively control the depth of penetration. Motion derives from the feet through to the rest of the body to create the horizontal motion, but only insofar as pushing away – they'll need something to push against as well, for this to make sense. Reaching back to grip the far side of the prop can supply this, but whether you do this supply something else for them to grab onto, the point to bear in mind is that the smaller-sized receiver will have a much shorter range of reach – if the far side of the prop is too far, and there's nothing else for them to press against properly, this will limit their ability to direct the scene.

Alright, last major pose I want to cover in this discussion, and considering that it would be remiss of me to skip positions that we know are definitely being used in game, some of you will know what it is. This one is the face-to-face against the wall (or, in BG3's case, tree) position.

This position is all about passion – about the immediacy of need so driven that you just can't take the time to situate yourself better; about needing what you need to the point that you just can't stop what you're doing (or about to be doing) for another moment. If that isn't what you're shooting for, then this position might not be the best choice. Sedately picking up your partner, walking them over to a tree, putting them against it, and then getting busy just... well it just doesn't really work very well for atmosphere or tone, for example.



This pose doesn't really do other styles of scene well at all; it's excellent for tasteful shots that suggest much but show little, and not really good at all for scenes that want to be more overt, or to focus on the raw sexuality of the act – side shots that show both lover's profiles are the only effective way to do that. Similarly, the pose can be used to convey slower, more romantic love-making, but it's not well suited to it; most of the heavy-lifting of that kind of scene would be done in shots of face-to-face intimacy, and potentially with hand-play, but ultimately the need for softer, gentler elements is at odds with the physicality of one partner lifting and supporting the other like this.

For passionate scenes, a vigorous leg-lock is categorically the only real right choice for the receiving partner to make with their lower body – it is also the main way in which a receiving partner can contribute to or lead the pace of the scene, though showing this can be difficult, when it comes from flexing and loosening the grip, rather than anything more visible. They can use their hands to guide their partner as well, as well as engaging in other visibly passionate acts - raking at their back, tangling fingers in their hair, or, if you want them to show off a little more they can reach up and back, gripping onto the support and helping to show off more of their body in the process, while in-scene helping their partner support their weight. Kissing and other forms of face-to-face intimacy are another near essential part of this pose; your lovers won't have much else to be doing with their faces like this anyway.

The giving partner is limited in their options for contributing meaningfully, outside of the main motion itself – they can share in the kissing and other close intimacies, but they will need at least one hand to support their partner's body, tree or no tree, and this leaves them little freedom to explore their partner in other ways. If the receiver is using their hands to support themselves or contribute to the motion, then their body is likely exposed and visible – and if they are, then it will be easier for the giver to spare a hand to take advantage of this. If they do have a hand free, it should be put to use to compliment the atmosphere and tone that you're choreographing.

The pure and directed nature of this type of position means that it can cause some difficulties for smaller-sized partners. Starting with a small-sized receiver:



While there aren't too many strictly necessary adjustments to translate this pose, the key points are – as with any pose that uses it – a full leg lock isn't going to work for a smaller receiver. It should be noted and and adjusted for that, rather than squeezing with the ankles, a smaller receiver will instead communicate the same action with pressure from their knees.

If the original scene has the receiver tangling fingers in their partner's hair, this is less likely to work for a small receiver, however, they can most likely still engage in other intimate touches as high as their partner's face and cheeks, as well as stroking or giving guidance with pressure against the chest. The other issue with a direct transition is that, once again, kissing is more or less out of reach while the partners are still engaged at groin level – and the presence of the wall/tree means that letting the giver crunch over to meet the smaller partner stretching up will likely be impeded by the prop unless it's particularly thin or short. Alternatively, the smaller-sized receiver can reach up – lacing their hands behind their partner's neck is a good prelude to pulling themselves up (away from the prop and towards their partner) for a kiss directly, and it can work as an intimate and playful moment, but it should be remembered that the sexual motion down below is not going to be continuing during this action; with a small receiver, you can't really manage both at the same time.

Lastly, from a shooting perspective, this pose struggles with a smaller receiver in the way that many close-in poses do – between the giver's size, and the supporting object(s), finding angles that look good and still reveal the scene in the way you want to can be difficult – it's easy to lose the smaller partner or leave a lot of their form obscured. In this case, side angled shots are the most effective way to really convey the scene as a whole, and your only good option for showing what's going on clearly – shooting from the giver's back angle can work with same-sized partners, but it's far less effective when the receiver is small.

On to adapting this pose for a small-sized giver...



So, this is, generally speaking, just not going to work with a small-sized giving partner. While particularly strong small characters will be justified in trying this anyway, for most, it's not going to seem practical and will instead be unconvincing and awkward to adapt. You're just going to have to pick a different pose here, to capture the tone and atmosphere you want. It might be nice if some of our character's physical attributes could influence what positions they went for – so that our halfling barbarians could absolutely try this, but that's a degree of game-mechanic that I doubt would work in a satisfying way in practice.

Regardless – for the sake of diligence, if you do adapt the pose for this pairing, the smaller partner is necessarily going to be using both hands to support their partner against the tree/wall, and will have no real freedom to contribute to the scene else-wise. If they can reach their partner's chest for kissing, licking, sucking or nuzzling, this can be used to support the tone you're conveying, but raw physicality will still always remain the primary tone here, no matter what you do. Even if the lovers use a slow pace, gentle motions, and the receiving partner can crunch and curl enough to make direct kissing doable, the body-awkwardness of the pose will still drag the focus back to the predominately physical element of the act itself.

The receiving partner theoretically has freedom with their hands to assist in the scene and shift or support the tone as you want them to, however the size difference present and the mildly unwieldy way it looks to shoot this adaptation, means that the scene will have trouble looking convincing if the receiver doesn't actively assist in supporting their weight too – ideally by reaching up to grip the top of the wall, or wrap their hands around the tree trunk, or whatever other prop you're using for this. Again, however, having both partners fully engaged in making the position work and supporting it will inevitably underscore the physical, sexual focus of the sequence, rather than any other tone or atmosphere.

That's it for most major positions that are commonly used or likely to be dropped into a scene – more interesting, complicated or exotic poses, using interesting, complicated and exotic props, are all a possibility, but they are also a spectrum so vast that I couldn't possibly give descriptions and breakdowns of each. Hopefully, however, these examinations have reinforced most of the common factors that you need to consider when choreographing intimate scenes that involve smaller-sized partners, and the kinds of adaptations that need to be made to accommodate them while still preserving the intended tone or atmosphere of the 'original' same-sized partner scenes.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this – this focus has been primarily on two-person giver-receiver choreography. There are a lot of other fun sex acts that will likely be involved in intimate cut-scenes, and many of the same considerations apply to all of them too, but I didn't have the scope to get into all of those wonderful things as well.

One point I do want to bring up is concerning male-male pairings, or situations where both partners can potentially give or receive. In many of the poses we examined here, translating the position to something that worked and looked good was particularly difficult for small-sized giving partners. In some cases, they simply couldn't translate effectively at all and would need a new position to replace the original in those cases. Often, in these cases, the translation for a small-sized receiver worked far more easily. This can create a temptation to simply write your scenes in a certain way – for example, to just suppose that for male-male pairings, the player character is always the receiver... this is, in fact, how the game scenes were currently functioning, when we were able to see them. Having spoken to a couple of males who sleep with males, I want to say, most emphatically, Do Not Do This. You're making scenes that are designed to be open to characters of all sorts, and making it a flat rule that a male PC will always, without question or conversation or discussion, bottom to all of the male origin characters is not a good move to make – not even 'not a good choice', I'll be frank; it's simply not acceptable design. In D:OS2, players could have a conversation leading into their intimate sequences, and over the course of them, that let them make key decisions about how they wanted the encounter to be; this needs to happen in some fashion, more than ever if you're giving a fully rendered scene – if a scene is shared by participants who can both potentially give or (and?) receive, then the player needs to have some agency in the decision.

A last point, beyond considering the dynamics of individual positions within scenes, most of these considerations also apply to how you transition from one position to another if you use multiple poses throughout a scene; when you adapt a pose for a small-sized character, make sure that you can still transition properly from the new situation to the next one, and that it still makes sense – or else adjust that transition as well to account for it. It's a small detail, but it's very visible if you miss it.

Alright that's it! Okay, maybe not quite...

Bonus scene! For all those hungry vampires out there!

Astarion's Bite-Night sequence is pretty darn clunky for smaller characters right now, and if we add in the theoretical possibility of our character getting vamped at some point, then there are some things I'd like to flag for consideration as well! The basic positioning that we're using for the bite scene might look something like this (right now it doesn't look like anything, and before that we had arms going into bodies and other nonsense):



The top hand, both in the original game scene and here, is used primarily to position the victim's shoulder and help expose the neck, while the lower hand is used for support. Moving the shoulder is important here, since we need to make room to get our fangs into the neck properly, after all.

If the bite victim is smaller, however, a direct translation of this position needs certain adjustments:



With a smaller target, lower to the ground, and a more delicate shoulder, the natural inclination to comfortably shift the shoulder is more likely to be with the arm down and in, rather than up and out to the side – this is also best since the raise side-out arm would risk obscuring the smaller character from some shots. The biter will also need to lean down and turn their head downward at a steeper angle. Their support arm is more likely to edge further forward and around, to compensate for the slightly different centre of balance as they lean over the smaller target.

Hilariously (not really, it's sad...), the current halfling models, with their ridiculous over-sized bobble-heads, heads larger than the heads of medium-sized creatures, actually make Astarion's bite impossible to achieve! He can't darn well get at our necks to bite them, because our ballooning heads are in the way. In the game scenes, this was ignored, and it just clips really badly. Funnily enough, fixing the halfling models as I suggested in the main halfling model thread would remove this problem!

If, in the future, we can contract this curse for ourselves, repeating the bite scene with a smaller biter needs adjustments of its own:


Just as biting a smaller, lower down creature changes the arm position in one direction, so biting a larger creature changes it the other way – here, the angle at which the smaller biter reaches to shift the shoulder necessitates a more raised arm and a turned grip, pulling that shoulder down and away so they can get access. As above, the smaller biter's support arm is more likely to shift back in the opposite direction, to be back behind the victim's head, rather than to the side or in front.

These are only small adjustments, but not insignificant – if you don't make them, then the smaller sized characters will clip badly, and no-one wants that. You'll get blood everywhere.

==

Okay, now we're done! Those of you who made it this far, I commend you! A final thanks to all our participating fictional character models:


That's a lot of simulated pixel intimacy... Am I too invested in this?

Welp…I am now swearing off romance in games for good. Those images will haunt me forever, Niara.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s great work and all. Great and terrible…much like Lord Voldemort.

Dear gods I must bleach my eyes.

Hey! I did say my 3d modelling skills aren't great! You were forewarned... They're just meant as visual guidelines and aides after all - it's not meant to be sexy, it's just meant to help convey information, hehe.

(And just to belay any concerns, I did specifically seek out communication with the mod staff to make sure that I was okay to make this thread, and cleared it with them in advance. I'm being mature about this ^.^)

Welp...I'm pretty sure we're all on some kind of list now

When you said you were working on a project related to BG:3 I guess I should have seen this coming. I was expecting something more to do with narrative :roll

I've been tinkering with a BG:3 text game myself to pass the time, but the amount of work that went into this is impressive.

Lol. It’s very in depth Niara. Still bleaching eyes tho. 😜

Holy moly this is some analysis. Props. Hopefully this reaches the choreographers at Larian.

...but yes I'm glad I'm at my family's and thus not using my home IP address xD

And that was a mistake. You didn't take the size of the equipment into account. And as result many of this illustrations are looking pretty painful when the viewer realises that there is a penis of that huge guy inside of that tiny girl whose whole stomach is barely bigger that that thing inside her. If we'd talk only about humans a man may damage woman's insides just by going in too early or too intense.
Female halflings should rely on manual and oral practices with bigger races. Otherwise it's simply dangerous for her.

Well, do bear in mind that the models are representing giver and receiver - not necessarily male and female ^.^ There is a body orifice down there that both sexes share and depth alone is, strictly speaking, less of a problem for it (though girth still is, obviously).

That said, you're not wrong that smaller vagina-owning partners are naturally going to have less leeway in terms of what they can realistically handle with that particular orifice than their larger counterparts, but do remember also that we squeeze babies out of those things too - with sufficient preparedness and warm up, you might be surprised what is workable. There are women out there who can barely feel comfortable with even three inches and relative girth, no matter how ready they are... and there are others who are ever chasing that deeper stretch and aren't truly happy unless the depth counter is in the double digits... and everything in between. The same will naturally be true for smaller-sized females too - so while your average halfling or gnome woman might only prefer a few inches of depth, there will be extremes on both directions for them too. This isn't FATAL, and we can't book-keep that or even really go into it... but I do agree that generally, smaller females will probably want their larger partners to be gentle with them, and careful of their limits.

To that end... you may have noticed if you look carefully, that the majority of the poses I examined here, where they involve a small receiver, that receiver is generally posed and positioned in such a way that they have a clear and direct line of contact communication with the larger partner to directly push, guide or otherwise give immediate feedback on their limits for penetration - the hand pressed back and down against the midsection close to the point of connection, and similar little things. It's also part of why I took pains at times to talk about where and how a smaller receiver could interact to control or guide the scene, with direct contact communication... and stress the poses where this wasn't as easy, and the need for caution with them - it wasn't just for giggles - it's because that kind of mid-intimacy communication matters, and is important - at a practical level as well as adding to the connection between the partners and the intimacy of the scene. If I didn't make the point well enough that this is an important consideration when writing with smaller receivers, then perhaps I could have been more emphatic about it - I felt I had been, but it's done now, I guess.

If I was to redo, how large would you prefer me to make the human-sized male anatomy? 4 inches? 6? 8? 12? (I'm speaking in jest and good humour, I promise)

I'm not totally agree with you arguments here.
Baby's squeezing is not an argument at all, it's painful, often damaging and sometimes even letal process, so it's same exact danger I'm talking about in another form. Add here that our body is preparing for it specifically.
Ofcource there is divercity in human sizes and human female sizes preferences. But different limits for human females are still vary in possible adult human sizes (think about girth as well as length) and a halfling doesn't reach even teenager human size... I could say more openly about those sizes, but that comes too close to the theme of real perversion and crime. You now may guess where to search for more correct examples of sexual contact consequences with such difference in sizes.
And by the way those women which prefer it as dip as possible and then some more often end up on gynecological chair with some nasty diagnoses like erosion and cyst.
And if we take a receiver of whatever gender using the another orifice the situation becomes even worse, because that hole is not made for big sizes at all.

So I don't think there is any realistic way to help the situation by control and communication.

Whatever google will tell you that it is average will suffice. Unless Larian will tell us real sizes of our companions. ;-)