Narrating NPCs, perspective preference?

[Shiver]

The majority of my RPs involve me in a GM/DM role. I love world building, and I love playing a cast of NPCs of varying types and significance. But lately I've noticed something about my DM/NPC writing and I'm not sure how I feel about it. So I'm soliciting opinions!

When I DM I narrate from the perspective of my player's character. As in, I describe the world around him to what he can perceive. When it comes to NPCs, I write what they say, what they do, or the obvious things they seem to be feeling via body language or facial expressions. But I don't definitively write what they think or feel, since the player character isn't omniscient. This is especially important in system games like D&D, of course.

But sometimes NPCs stay on the scene for a while, or even become permanent fixtures. When that happens, should I be switching to their 2? Revealing their thoughts and feelings more like a PC? Would that be stylistically jarring?

What would you want as a player in this circumstance?

 

[JuniorWizard]

As someone that had spent more time GMing myself than I ever have as a player while also having quite a bit of time banked as a player I would say that it's complicated. With the majority of NPCs, especially short term NPCs I think it makes the game far more interesting for the player to not know the inner workings of their mind, to not entirely understand where they're coming from and to only be able to see what their character would. I think this is especially true in DnD or other tabletops where you have 5 or 6 people vying for the spotlight and you don't really have the time to focus on any specific character too much, least of all NPCs.

That being said when it comes to writing on a site like Blue Moon, I think most people appreciate that this is a more intimate experience (the intimacy of the sexual nature of it aside). I think that when a character stays long enough to effectively become what a party member would be in a proper DnD game, I think that's when it's appropriate to actually have them start broadcasting their thoughts a little, for the other writer if not for their character. If the other writer is a half decent roleplayer they'll be able to avoid having their character act on the information presented to them as a player while still being more enriched in their experience by knowing more of that character's thoughts, goals and ideals.

There's definitely room for flexibility, but much as you can make decisions for all your NPCs that don't involve them acting on what you as a GM know about the PC the other writer can definitely make sure that the same applies to their character while still getting a more enriching experience. It might come down to if your partner is able to do that or not, so perhaps discuss it with your partner ahead of time, though I don't think there's many situations in which it will make their experience worse, and most people will be able to play around it without issue.

 

[Shiver]

I'm more worried about it from a stylistic perspective. I fully trust my players not to abuse the knowledge of NPCs' thoughts if I reveal them... it's more about whether consistency is better (maintaining narration from the player character's perspective only) or if it's preferred to flesh out more significant and established NPCs, even if it means changing authorial style.

I suppose there's an extra complication in my case, where my games tend to be of the "dominant main character amid submissives/slaves/victims," variety. So thematically, it's comfortable for NPCs to be presented only in relation to how the player perceives them... it's congruent with objectification tones.