Writing Stupid Main Characters Well?

[Katy133]

I've been thinking about this story idea I've had that explores this question: "What if a hero took on a sidekick, but instead of them becoming better people as a duo, they realise that they are better off without each other and parts ways by the end of the story?"

The hero realises that the sidekick/partner/companion's intelligence (smart vs dumb), motives ("in it for the money" vs "in it for a sense of justice"), and sensibilities (selfless vs selfish) are just too different from the hero's. Instead of completing each other in a ying/yang duality (which is what the audience expects), their differences cause too much conflict and they end up being toxic to one another.

(It may help to note that) I was inspired mainly by three things:

1. Hitchcock's Psycho: (Unmarked spoiler alert, though this is a well-known twist) The film's beginning focuses on a young woman who steals some money from her boss and runs away, staying for the night in a motel. The film sets up conflict (the theft), suspense (will she get away with it?), and our protagonist (the woman). Only it turns out that she get's killed off... with over half the film's running time left to go! The film then switches to having Norman (the person who runs the motel) becoming the protagonist.
2. Doctor Who: The Doctor's companions usually change throughout the series because they are either killed off, or decide that they want to go back to their families. However, there are some rare episodes where the Doctor outright "kicks out" a companion for doing something amoral, selfish, or completely insane (See: The Long Game and Planet of the Dead episodes). There are also episodes where the Doctor (at the end of an episode) offers a person he's just had a chance adventure with to come with him, but the companion refuses because they've realised adventure's not for them (See: "The Lodger").
3. Dirk Gently: The novel series has Dirk travel with a different companion per book. This is because by the end of each book, the companion leaves Dirk due to not liking him or not wanting to get roped into more adventures.

My problem is this: How do you write a main character who is stupid, yet not annoying to the player? I've had this idea for a while and I'd like some idea bouncing and/or some examples in fiction I can study.

Things to note:

1. This character doesn't have to be likeable. In fact, I want the audience to feel happy/satisfied that this dumb character doesn't end up staying with the detective.
2. This character isn't just dumb, they are also selfish, cowardly, and motivated to go on adventures for the possibility of fame and fortune.
3. I'm not sure if this dumb character will be the player character, or if the game will be told in third-person.

Character examples I've thought about:

1. Steven Universe: Steven's not the brightest in his group of heroes, but he's well-meaning, kind, energetic, and wants to help people. It also helps that he's young and the three other members of his team are meant to act as parental figures to him.
2. Inspector Gadget: Inspector Gadget is oblivious to danger and is often fooled by the villains in the series, having to be saved by his niece, Penny, and his dog, Brain (without even realising it). However, he still has a sense of justice, an unlimited amount of gadgets he can use, and is a loving uncle to Penny. It helps that the series (ironically) focuses more on Penny than Gadget, and that Gadget is a comedic character.
3. Wallace and Gromit: See: Inspector Gadget, above.
4. Goofy: Comedic character.
5. Bertie Wooster (from Jeeves & Wooster): I wouldn't say he's stupid (more like an "upper-class twit"), but he's definitely not as bright as his valet, Jeeves (who possesses encyclopedic knowledge). He's also cowardly and meek, causing a lot of other characters to take advantage of him.
6. Wheatley from Portal 2: An AI built for the sole purpose of making anything he's plugged into make bad decisions. A dirty coward, yet still likeable. It helps that he gives the player help, is funny, and is dependant on the player character (she has to carry him around because he has no legs).
7. Lester Nyggard from 2014's Fargo: He starts out as a simple-minded, very put-upon man (like Bertie, see above), and then slowly becomes a more confident person, having some scenes show his resourcefulness as well.
8. The Adventures of Paddington Bear: Not really stupid, but Paddington is quite child-like compared to how he's treated by the people around him (they treat Paddington as an adult, even referring to him as "Mr. Brown"). Since Paddington has logic similar to a child's, he makes a lot of mistakes that you wouldn't expect an adult to make (flooding a bathroom with water, getting marmalade jam on something expensive, etc.). However, he has the politeness of an adult, and never ever does something out of selfishness (unlike most children, who usually give in to their id.), and always tries to be helpful. It also helps that he's a bear who immigrated to London from "darkest Peru," and therefor isn't used to London's customs.

Sorry for the amount of text. Thanks!

[trooper6]

The question is, how to make a character stupid without being annoying. I think, for what you say you want (which is ultimately the two characters parting ways), the character should be annoying. Because of convention of keeping your sidekick no matter what, if the character is not annoying, the player will keep them no matter what.

So...embrace the annoying-ness!

[SundownKid]

I guess it would be the difference between "unknowingly stupid" and "knowingly obtuse"

If the person is stupid and they don't realize it, they will be a sympathetic character because they make an effort to learn when they have the chance.

For example, let's say the main character was a peasant talking to a knight. The knight says "we have to go slay the dragon". The peasant says "why can't we just go talk to it?" And the knight shakes his head and says "the last person who did got eaten'. The peasant simply couldn't know facts like that unless they were otherwise elucidated. But once he says that the peasant will keep it in mind.

However there are "knowingly obtuse" characters who don't make an effort to learn when they get the chance, these people are more closed-minded. Those are the annoying type of stupid. Because you know that whatever happens they will do the wrong thing and you just want to get them out of the picture.

For example, let's say, a king who does whatever his evil regent says because he is too busy eating the finest delicacies to bother with the work of governing the kingdom. He won't change his ways unless he is forcibly deposed in a coup.

Or someone who is so stupid that he is just physically incapable of getting smarter and will make the same mistake again and again.

Tl;dr, the ability to learn from mistakes makes stupid characters less annoying.

[YossarianIII]

Instead of completing each other in a ying/yang duality (which is what the audience expects), their differences cause too much conflict and they end up being toxic to one another.

I feel like with unlikeable characters (if you choose to make an unlikeable character), the most important thing for me is that the game "knows" they're unlikeable. For example, Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix "knows" that Prof. Umbridge is annoying, and it's structured so that you root against her the whole book and it's cathartic when she loses. Of course, players tend to naturally identify with protagonists when they make decisions for them, so you'd have to take that into consideration...

Personally, if I were writing a stupid, evil VN protagonist, I would make them likable... at first. You know the character is a jerk but you figure it's funny and harmless... until they do something terrible and you see what they're really capable of. That would provide a clear reason for getting rid of the character, but also make the parting kind of bittersweet. Out of the characters you listed,

Wheatley kind of falls into that category. Seems mostly harmless until he tries to kill you.

But that's just one approach, and what you do would really depend on what you want to emphasize in the story.



P.S.: Have you ever seen a show run by Dan Harmon (either Rick & Morty or Community)? I feel like "toxic partnerships" are as much a hallmark of his stuff as director cameos were for Hitchcock.

[Klawzie]

I have really mixed feelings about this. I'm trying to think of examples of characters I'm both familiar with and liked who fall into the sort of range you're looking for. I don't think I've ever really took the trouble to create a character like that, so I'm not sure how useful my advice would be after a general, "Figure out what you want and study what makes characters like them work." This may require a visit to TVTropes to find out what tropes characters satisfy to see if you can figure out common threads and other ways to portray the same trope.

I did actually really enjoy Wheatley. There was just something so endearing about his fumbling and eventual spiral out of control. I ended up rooting for him a little - not to win, but maybe just to at least succeed in ways that didn't harm Chel.

I also thought about Maxwell Smart from Get Smart. (The original, mind you - not the recent remake which was only tolerable at best by comparison - imho.) He's a bumbler and a fool, but I loved him. I still want to buy the DVDs - I miss the show. Of course, he might not be what you're after at all - because in spite of his exasperating mistakes and blunders, other characters typically liked him. If you specifically don't want players to become attached to the "stupid" one, you might want to study him for how to prevent his bumbling from being endearing?

In direct comparison - Inspector Gadget (which was inspired by/pretty directly ripped off from Get Smart). All my dislike. Penny's genius and hard work and her infinite patience taking care of the mess Gadget left blithely in his wake was (as far as I remember) never acknowledged in any way. I don't remember any redeeming qualities in Gadget the way there were in Smart - he was too wrapped up in himself to even realize he was being assisted - and it's not like I even recall him having an over-inflated ego the way Smart did. Smart typically understood when he'd fallen short (missed it.... by that much). He had his moments where he could be the hero and he could acknowledge (when he realized) the competency of those who helped him out (usually Agent 99, but I have the idea he'd congratulate others for their successes, even if he tried to play off that he was better. iirc, this even extended to the badguys). Not super familiar with this show since not even the awesomeness of Penny or the fun of Doctor Claw and his cat's threat made up for the utter frustration I felt towards Gadget.

Honestly... if the "dumb" one were the protagonist and I disliked them, it would be the competent foil I'd be rooting for and the only reason I wouldn't try to off the protagonist the moment I could if they were really getting to me. So it's up to you if you want to play with that sort of thing (by finding ways to off the protag and save the foil or make clear that the foil's survival depends on the protag's) or avoid it (by making the "stupid" protag sympathetic so you're playing the "Penny" to their "Gadget" and trying to get them through the gauntlet unscathed).

Not sure how much my rambling will help. Antihistamines are making me a little derpy myself right now and I've spent forever on this post trying to make sure I completed thoughts. I find the concept interesting and could be a lot of fun to play as long as there was either catharsis or good bonding involved. xD

[Cakey]

Well... It depends what kind of stupid character is there. For example, making bad decisions dosn't exactly make main character seem stupid even if he/she actually IS stupid.

There are a lot of characters that can fit to "stupid" category:
1. Characters who acts silly because of reasons(they don't care, they think it is cute or funny, they are ignorant) but they aren't generally silly.
2. Characters who don't have a lot of knowledge so they don't act or dosn't make right decisions because of lack of sources.
3. Characters who have problems with their self esteem so they are just unlogical and think that everything would bend to their will(those people are not very likable).
4. Characters who make bad decisions. They don't have enough wisdom to understand all circumstances and notice things that are important. It is usually connected with lack of experience or flaw of mindset.

You can make a lot without making character all stereotypicaly stupid but just making it a part of his character that makes him shine.

[sunwave]

I think it's really important to look at the examples you gave:
- All the dumb characters that are the main character have redeeming qualities, such as being just, kind or trying to help.
- All the dumb characters that do NOT have redeeming qualities, are not the main character. They can be made tolerable by being funny or wholly incompetent in their bad qualities (wheatley, for example).
- "Funny" can count as a redeeming quality if they are REALLY funny. Otherwise, it's still not the greatest to have them as a main.
There is not a single character mentioned in this topic that is the main character, dumb, AND without redeeming qualities that makes him a good person. So either be dumb and kind, or dumb and non-main.

In my experience, when the main character isn't likable, they have to be at least very intriguing. A dumb person is usually not very intriguing at all. At most, they're funny. Then again, there are probably some examples of dumb, unlikable main characters anyway. I'm just saying it will be VERY hard to keep a reader interested.

[Kinjo]

My problem is this: How do you write a main character who is stupid, yet not annoying to the player? I've had this idea for a while and I'd like some idea bouncing and/or some examples in fiction I can study.

Things to note:
This character doesn't have to be likeable. In fact, I want the audience to feel happy/satisfied that this dumb character doesn't end up staying with the detective.
This character isn't just dumb, they are also selfish, cowardly, and motivated to go on adventures for the possibility of fame and fortune.
I'm not sure if this dumb character will be the player character, or if the game will be told in third-person.

I think the key to this is realizing that the character isn't objectively stupid, but only stupid in the opinion of the other protagonist.

First, you need to make the audience sympathize with the stupid character, pretty much concealing anything that would make them unlikable. Then over the course of the story, reveal those aspects. That way, the character isn't initially annoying to the player, which satisfies the first part of your problem. The player gets invested, and in turn, has a reaction to seeing the character's true nature, and at that point will more than likely be wanting to see the two protagonists part ways.

But the thing to keep in mind is that these are all reasons why the other protagonist doesn't like them. The reasons are relative to the other character. In any given situation where two people are partners and then realize they shouldn't be together, it's not because one person is objectively more stupid than another (well, I guess that's debatable!) but because the two simply have vastly different points of view. You could find a second stupid person and the two stupid people would work just fine together. So in that case, "being stupid" is helpful because by that very subjective definition of stupid, the two people will find common ground and actually work better as a team.

For example, a vegan might call someone who eats meat "stupid" and "selfish" because of the harm it causes to animals, but that's only the perception of the vegan. But people who aren't vegan don't consider themselves stupid or selfish for eating meat, and would likely not find it a very compelling reason to believe that a character in a story would also be stupid or selfish on that basis. Similarly, a character with a "morally wrong" motive is only morally wrong in the perspective of the observer -- in this case, the other protagonist. So while the protagonist might think his partner's reasons for doing whatever are stupid or wrong, there could be some positives or valid points. The main thing I'm getting at here is that you won't have a universally unliked character, unless you deliberately make them unlikeable, but at that point I'd think they'd be less appealing overall (because characters with morally gray shades of depth are far more interesting).

Anyway, keep in mind that when writing the character, they probably don't think they're stupid and will actually have reasons to justify what they are doing. You can make this character likeable by exploring these reasons in more detail, then having a moment which pisses off the main protagonist enough to kick him off the team (or whatever). Now you will also probably get a divide in your audience: those who sympathized with the character and those who sympathized more with the protagonist. But that could be good for discussion, too.

This is all assuming the character is not the player themselves, in which case that adds a lot more complexity. You could take that in a lot of directions.

[MoonByte]

Well, you take multiple different kinds of "stupid" here which makes a clear answer difficult.
Stupidity regarding intelligence should be dealt with differently than someone with different morale.
I mean, taking on all of these the same would be like treating Squall from FF8 like Forrest from Forrest Gump.

There ARE ways, certainly, for all kinds of attributes. Some are a bit more difficult (especially when it isn't necessarily "stupidity", but a mental handicap such as in Forrest Gump or I Am Sam) since you must be very careful about the how to present the character, some are somewhat easy (the comedy sidekick, since he is comic relief like Cosmo from Fairly OddParents and thus can be simply "insane").

So the major factor should first be: what is that "flaw" that you desire in the character and which you fear may annoy people?
Because if you know what it is, you can think of ways to counteract it.
If the person is a mercinary with no real interest in things such as "innocent victims", give them something that they feel strongly about nonetheless to show that they DO have feelings, just maybe not for the things that the MC cares about (and maybe reveal why they stopped caring for anyone but them and when you want to go all out, do some Character Development and make them come to the point where they rethink their decisions and try to be more sociable). Resident Evil 6 did that with Jake, Final Fantasy 8 with half the cast (especially Squall and Seifer), Gears of War has a whole cast of hardcore fighters, but all of them care at least about SOMETHING.

If it is more the "stupid" variation, then the character usually has something to make up for the missing intelligence. Most series make them very adorable, affectionate or something along those lines. Others make them highly amusing in how they don't understand things (though this could be risky, because some may find it insulting on how the character becomes funny for "being from the countryside" or "having aspergers" or whatever made them "stupid").

By looking up characters in media that somewhat fit what you would like and analyzing why they are still positive characters that the player/watcher can relate to, you are already doing the very right thing.