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

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.