The background sounds like it needs more interweaving into what the humans' backgrounds actually are.

My table rule is "find a way that your character fits into the group, or what's the point?" Your situation sounds interesting, but I think will probably need to be fleshed out through additional play.

When I played the ironbreaker in BFP, we had a priest of siggy in the party. Well,l that's pretty easy as siggy and the dwarfs are tight..being that there's a hammer involved and all. As for a mage of the grey stuff, or a petty peasant, I'd probably just "pat them on the head" as inferior (but probably not vocalize it if they were my allies, as that wouldn't serve my larger purpose).

jh

I would say to have the dwarf owe one, or all, of the other characters a debt of honour. It makes a perfect excuse for why the dwarf sticks around even if he strongly disagrees with the rest of the party.

Fantasy stories are filled with this kind of duos where a dishonorable rogue saves a noble warriors life and the warrior follows him around as a bodyguard, waiting to repay the debt (if even possible). The warrior is full of condemnation for the rogues actions, but keep following him because his code of honour gives him no choice. This sometimes leads to situations where the rogue assumes the warrior is his lackey and is then surprised when the warrior suddenly flat out refuses to do something because it would increase the stain on his honour instead of decreasing it.

Yup, make it a matter of his personal or his clan's honour, to frustrate him perhaps an obscure matter from his elders in clan which he doesn't understand. I did this to explain why an elf and dwarf were in same group (elf had saved dwarf's life, without the dwarf's knowledge).

Essentially make doing something that seems "not WFRP dwarf-like" actually be a matter of being "even more WFRP dwarf-like than it would be otherwise".

I would say to have the dwarf owe one, or all, of the other characters a debt of honour. It makes a perfect excuse for why the dwarf sticks around even if he strongly disagrees with the rest of the party.

Fantasy stories are filled with this kind of duos where a dishonorable rogue saves a noble warriors life and the warrior follows him around as a bodyguard, waiting to repay the debt (if even possible). The warrior is full of condemnation for the rogues actions, but keep following him because his code of honour gives him no choice. This sometimes leads to situations where the rogue assumes the warrior is his lackey and is then surprised when the warrior suddenly flat out refuses to do something because it would increase the stain on his honour instead of decreasing it.

Yup, make it a matter of his personal or his clan's honour, to frustrate him perhaps an obscure matter from his elders in clan which he doesn't understand. I did this to explain why an elf and dwarf were in same group (elf had saved dwarf's life, without the dwarf's knowledge).

Essentially make doing something that seems "not WFRP dwarf-like" actually be a matter of being "even more WFRP dwarf-like than it would be otherwise".

Actually his former character owed the party's Rune Apprentice a debt of honor and life. He saved him from Neiglish Rot by forging a protective rune for him, taught to him by a venerable Runelord. My player would not be happy to owe someone again, so this time I plan to make him a bodyguard of the young Rune Apprentice. This way he won't be forced to be nice towards honoruless humans and remain dwarven to the core. Your thoughts?

Well, nothing says he has to be nice just because he owes someone a debt But yeah, that could work.

Well, nothing says he has to be nice just because he owes someone a debt But yeah, that could work.

My thought exactly.

This dpeends on your campaign as it requires/depends on a particular story thread. Another way to do it dwarfy but avoid "debt of honour" is to go grudge - the dwarf has personally or through clan a grudge against some target that is the focus/a major component of the campaign and the only/best way to pursue it is with these comrades.

E.G., if in Enemy Within 3rd edition, a grudge against the Black Cowl for some event.

Debts of Honour and Grudges are two of the core dwarf traits.

This is tricky as this reason for being in a group won't outlast the story arc.

Another approach is that the dwarf is outcast, can't ask for or get help from clan, participate in clan's efforts. This is for something short of Trollslayer shame. One of your relatives did something awful and the whole family has been chucked out of clan for example. That at least explains why the dwarf is not hanging out with other dwarfs.

Also, if it was me, I would be pretty blunt, hand the Player a copy of Grudgelore and Stone and Steel and say "you want to play it, you figure it out." I view "explaining why they are together" as being something Players are responsible for, GM can and should help but ultimately it's a Player's job to create a PC that would logically be a companion of the other PC's. The players I GM regularly understand this and talk about their core group concept, why they are together etc., when creating a new group.

Also, if it was me, I would be pretty blunt, hand the Player a copy of Grudgelore and Stone and Steel and say "you want to play it, you figure it out." I view "explaining why they are together" as being something Players are responsible for, GM can and should help but ultimately it's a Player's job to create a PC that would logically be a companion of the other PC's. The players I GM regularly understand this and talk about their core group concept, why they are together etc., when creating a new group.

This is so true. The players are in responsible of their characters.

The group I'm playing in consist of two humans, one halfling, one high elf and one dwarf. So it's a disperete group but the GM is not the one dictating why the group sticks together (especially the dwarf and elf obviously). It's up to the players to make it work, or switch character(s).

The group does tend to increase party tension a lot, but that just increases the fun.

Also, if it was me, I would be pretty blunt, hand the Player a copy of Grudgelore and Stone and Steel and say "you want to play it, you figure it out." I view "explaining why they are together" as being something Players are responsible for, GM can and should help but ultimately it's a Player's job to create a PC that would logically be a companion of the other PC's. The players I GM regularly understand this and talk about their core group concept, why they are together etc., when creating a new group.

This is so true. The players are in responsible of their characters.

The group I'm playing in consist of two humans, one halfling, one high elf and one dwarf. So it's a disperete group but the GM is not the one dictating why the group sticks together (especially the dwarf and elf obviously). It's up to the players to make it work, or switch character(s).

The group does tend to increase party tension a lot, but that just increases the fun.

This dpeends on your campaign as it requires/depends on a particular story thread. Another way to do it dwarfy but avoid "debt of honour" is to go grudge - the dwarf has personally or through clan a grudge against some target that is the focus/a major component of the campaign and the only/best way to pursue it is with these comrades.

E.G., if in Enemy Within 3rd edition, a grudge against the Black Cowl for some event.

Debts of Honour and Grudges are two of the core dwarf traits.

This is tricky as this reason for being in a group won't outlast the story arc.

Another approach is that the dwarf is outcast, can't ask for or get help from clan, participate in clan's efforts. This is for something short of Trollslayer shame. One of your relatives did something awful and the whole family has been chucked out of clan for example. That at least explains why the dwarf is not hanging out with other dwarfs.

Also, if it was me, I would be pretty blunt, hand the Player a copy of Grudgelore and Stone and Steel and say "you want to play it, you figure it out." I view "explaining why they are together" as being something Players are responsible for, GM can and should help but ultimately it's a Player's job to create a PC that would logically be a companion of the other PC's. The players I GM regularly understand this and talk about their core group concept, why they are together etc., when creating a new group.

I generally only get the group together, but why they stay together is on them. Sure, sometimes I need to intervene subtly, like when our Dwarf player was neglected by Tilean and Ostlander. When Ostlander got Nieglish Rot, it was the youn Rune Apprentice who took him to his mentor, a powerfull Runelord who knew how to postpone the disease for some time.

As for the Dwarf ideas. He won't be an outcast, but the Grudge idea is interesting. I think I'll make him a commander, or at least a second in command of the Dwarf contingent in the army. Should be interesting for my PC, being a leader and all.

Here's another idea of how you could take a Dwarf trait and turn it into a reason for sticking around: pride.

Perhaps in the recent past there was a battle involving humans and dwarfs as allies. The dwarfs were doing most of the heavy work, but something went wrong. A mistake was made, a messenger got lost, or something. And the battle turned badly. It looked as if the orcs/beastmen/whoever were going to slaughter everyone.

Then a group of humans - including the two scoundrels, or people related to them, did something really, really underhand which turned the tide again. Perhaps they disguised themselves as Dwarfs, with massive fake beards, stole (borrowed) the priceless rune hammer from the dwarfs, and then, when surrounded by the bad guys, offered to surrender. The bad guys jumped at the chance to take such important prisoners, especially when they could humiliate the dwarf leader/king in the process.

Of course, the 'surrender' was really just a trap, and the humans / dwarfs ended up winning the day in the end.

However... the dwarfs are greatly shamed: their fighting spirit wasn't enough, and the humans won by trickery. What's more, that trickery really mocked the dwarfs, and left rumours about them surrendering never quite going away.

Unable to kill their human allies, the dwarfs (in a drunken rage?) swore to show that they were better than the humans: that honour, resilience, good workmanship, good dwarf values, etc. - that these were really the key to victory. And so the character has ended up accompanying his former allies in an attempt to show them up. To demonstrate the inferiority of their trickery and get them to admit that dwarfen honour is really superior.

Of course, it will never happen, and the dwarf may start to realise this, but that oath can't be broken...

Here's another idea of how you could take a Dwarf trait and turn it into a reason for sticking around: pride.

Perhaps in the recent past there was a battle involving humans and dwarfs as allies. The dwarfs were doing most of the heavy work, but something went wrong. A mistake was made, a messenger got lost, or something. And the battle turned badly. It looked as if the orcs/beastmen/whoever were going to slaughter everyone.

Then a group of humans - including the two scoundrels, or people related to them, did something really, really underhand which turned the tide again. Perhaps they disguised themselves as Dwarfs, with massive fake beards, stole (borrowed) the priceless rune hammer from the dwarfs, and then, when surrounded by the bad guys, offered to surrender. The bad guys jumped at the chance to take such important prisoners, especially when they could humiliate the dwarf leader/king in the process.

Of course, the 'surrender' was really just a trap, and the humans / dwarfs ended up winning the day in the end.

However... the dwarfs are greatly shamed: their fighting spirit wasn't enough, and the humans won by trickery. What's more, that trickery really mocked the dwarfs, and left rumours about them surrendering never quite going away.

Unable to kill their human allies, the dwarfs (in a drunken rage?) swore to show that they were better than the humans: that honour, resilience, good workmanship, good dwarf values, etc. - that these were really the key to victory. And so the character has ended up accompanying his former allies in an attempt to show them up. To demonstrate the inferiority of their trickery and get them to admit that dwarfen honour is really superior.

Of course, it will never happen, and the dwarf may start to realise this, but that oath can't be broken...

I like that. It's a really convoluted storyline, but I may present it to my Ironbreaker player. We'll see what he says.