>>46152594

First off, some context. I'm a relatively new DM, been playing in RPGs for several years but only started DMing not too long ago. My players are:

Bork - no RPG experience, bookish fellow
Gork - eccentric, tank-obsessed fellow who should belong on /ak/ but is great with being in-character and RPing in general
Mork - the player who RL is rather intellectual and chill, but IC wants to be lolrandumbz
Shork - newbie player who's just joined the group for a couple sessions

We're all already friends, to begin with. Previously, I'd run a brief campaign for Bork, Gork and Mork, but a combination of me burning out and Mork having RL issues (and hence overall nobody having much fun) made me stop. A month or two later, Bork suggests we try again, and we rope Shork in. I was reluctant, given how it went the last time, but I started having ideas for a campaign and got into the mood for it.

One of our issues starting was, do we bring Mork into this? It seemed like he heavily impacted our enjoyment previously, and given his apparent lack of enthusiasm, we were reluctant to ask him. However, social obligation is as social obligation does.

>>46152616

The campaign is set in modern times, with my players playing as themselves but with special powers. I ask them all to think of powers while I plot a story, and though it takes a fair bit of prodding, each of them think up a unique powerset. Well, except for Mork. He just says he can't think of anything and leaves it at that. Okay, so I give him more time.

The first session, Mork couldn't make it and had to bail for a concert with his girlfriend (girlfriend troubles, incidentally, were the problem the first time round). I went ahead and ran the session anyway, feeling kinda miffed. Bork, Gork and Shork goofed around, failed to catch the plot hooks, but it was all pretty fun. Due to time constraints, I had to cut the session midway, and we resumed the following evening without telling Mork. Shork finds that RPGing is fun, Bork and Gork are rather pleased that it's back up.

Now, we just had our second session a couple of days back. Mork could make it this time, but here's where it goes downhill. We start off and I come up with a power for him based on his musical interests since he still doesn't know what powers he wants. The party heads into a labyrinth, navigates Indiana Jones traps, solve puzzles that took too much effort to draw, and reach the tomb. In the tomb, there's already a group of people investigating, examining the statues and corpse. The party is as yet undetected.

>i create a ring of silence around those two straggler NPCs
Uh, okay.
>Shork, zap them
Wait, the NPCs realise they can't hear the others and turn about, catching sight of you guys.
>i blast out their eardrums
... roll

>>46152701
He fails his roll, but that's not the point. Later on, they grab one of the NPCs hostage, an unarmed young girl.

>i blast her eardrums

This time, the others successfully stop him, but only after they yell at him multiple times. Awhile later, they catch a researcher and when he curses the party, Mork takes severe offense and says he, well, blasts out his eardrums. He rolls a way too high number, and I say that the researcher gets thrown off into the abyss.

Point being, he's playing it like a psychopath and that's not what any of us wants. I've talked to him and he says that's the sort of character that he wants to play. "Isn't that the point of roleplaying?" Turns out, he doesn't want to play as himself, which is something that should really have come out when I first explained the premise of the campaign.

At the end of the day, when Mork has to leave for a concert with his family, I talk with the other players.

>>46152715
They all feel like he went roughshod over them, and that he was making decisions that they didn't like. Bork, Gork and Shork are relatively passive players, which is why they defer to Mork when he goes for violence. They don't like it, but they also don't want to say much about it. During the first session, their passivity wasn't much of an issue since they reached decisions through discussion and jolly cooperation, but with Mork, they say they started to feel disconnected and zoned out, deferring decisions to him. Immersion is one of the most important things in an RPG, so this is really a big issue, chaotic lolrandumbz aside.

More than that, Mork was playing it as though it's a singleplayer game, and he's admitted that he's taking his cue from GTA and Skyrim. When I ask him what he's after in the game, he says 'gratuitous violence', and that his decisions are modelled after a psycopathic videogame character (some dude from GTA).We don't want to boot him since we're a relatively close circle of friends, but I don't know how to deal with this otherwise.

I could conceivably restart the game as a fantasy RPG where players make new characters who aren't themselves, but I've put in a decent amount of narrative crafting and Bork and Shork are rather attached to their existing characters. I'd rather not change the whole game that everyone else enjoys for one person, though that doesn't mean I'm not willing to compromise.

tl;dr player wants to play psychopathically in a game where party plays as themselves, ruins everyone's fun and immersion. Short of kicking, what do?

To tell you the truth, your passive, easily led players are as much of a problem as the trigger happy "that guy" (who sounds like he is just playing D&D, or can't get out of that mindset).

You can make outright violence a less attractive option by applying logical consequences.

Also, when a campaign goes tits up, you don't have to blame it on a single person and kick them. You can just say "this isn't really fun for me anymore--somebody else want to run a game?"

>>46152808
You're right about passivity being a problem, I've asked them to step up more. It's not a very tangible fix, though, which kind of bugs me since I know they're also not very good at being more assertive.

Regarding consequences, I'm definitely going to have those. The problem, really, is making Mork care about it. Because he's not as invested in his character, I'm just worried that he'll take the consequences and go, 'Okay, whatever'.

I don't intend to stop DMing quite yet, this group's still quite 'fresh' in the sense that they need someone with more experience to guide them. In time, I'll ask the others to DM, but for now I'm trying to show them the flow of the game.

>>46152808
>>46152987
Applying consequences ain't gonna do shit, I know this guys type, he simply doesn't care enough about the game to actually worry about consequences. I bet he doesn't even complain when things don't go his way he just accepts it and continues ruining everything as much as possible.

Honestly the worst kind of "that guy".

The solution is to have the other players take control of every situation and keep him out of it.
To accomplish this I think you should have one member of the party, not Mork, be established as the leader.
I don't know how your setting works but if there is some kind of military like organization that they could join and requires one of them to be a "squad leader" then suddenly that player is going to be expected to take charge.

This can also be an avenue of consequences that involves literally telling Mork straight up what he did wrong, mission X was failed because Mork did Y, he has to do Z as punishment for ruining the mission/gets told if he fucks up again he's gonna get kicked out of the organization. This might make him care just a little more, but probably not.

>>46153233
It's funny you bring that up. Mork didn't use to be like this until he was conscripted. In fact, Gork and I are conscripted as well. Bork was conscripted, then discharged. So I think adding a military tone to it would only worsen shit since I suspect there's some element of rebellion against authority to Mork's attitude.