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

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.