I think, the best way to deal with such a situation, is to openly discuss it with the group and construct rules on how to handle certain devices and activities (doing homework or finishing a chapter). And if only one member of the group is against allowing something, it is forbidden.
Once the rules are set, everyone has the right to demand their enforcement.
Usually, such social contracts have to be maintained and adjusted once in a while, but the longer a group stays together, the more important they get, IMHO.
I once tried to play a simple turn based puzzle game (which I found boring, because it was too easy) during an RPG session. Just to find out whether I could still follow the game.
Even when restricting the game to moments when my character was away from the group and the action, it ruined my game. I was able to basically follow the game, but had not the capacity to analyze the situations, which meant that, whenever I reentered, I had no idea about the mental state of the other characters, leading me to act differently as I would have otherwise.
In situations that “only” needed skill-checks, it took me some time to grasp the situation and when relying on the information I could remember, I often did something stupid or inconsistent regarding my character.
It might just be that I am particularly unable to follow the RPG while doing something else, but no-one can control oneself so well as to give the RPG exactly the attention it needs and no less — how would you know how much attention it needs at every moment, when attention is what you use to judge that?
When I want something to do while my character is inactive, I tend to sketch the current scenes. This keeps me emerged and I don't feel bored.
As a GM, I am very sensitive concerning mobiles and such… usually it distracts me more than the player twiddling with it.
When a player has such a device at hand, I tell him that he will be ignored, as he seems too busy to play with us. The character then just went home, stayed behind because he felt sick, etc.
This is very harsh, but that sort of thing has ruined too many sessions for me.
If it distracts the other players, they usually tell him themselves. If I notice that they hesitate to tell him or he does not react, he gets a warning and if it continues I usually ask him to leave.
If a player refuses to leave but keeps on annoying the group, I tend to have some fun with his character…
My players know that I will usually go out of my way to save them, but if I get annoyed, I will use the rules mercilessly.
Mobiles will be turned off.
If a player has to be reachable, than the phone will be kept out of sight.
Once, a player had to be reachable and his girlfriend kept on sending him meaningless messages. When he turned of the signal for text messages, she started calling because he did not answer. By the third call, he asked her to only call if it was urgent and explained that she was about to ruin the evening for all of us. Two calls later, he explained to us that they wanted to go to the cinema later that night and apparently she was unable to decide what she should wear, how to get to the cinema, and so on…
5 minutes later I answered the phone… we were never allowed to play at his flat, because she was afraid of me.
The only reason for which I will ever allow tablets or such like at the game table is to look up some facts when playing in a real-world setting.
It sounds like you've done a great job handling this thus far. You have talked to the players individually and in a group setting, collaboratively created a set of play guidelines, and made sure that expectations are clear. Good job! While these strategies tend to catch about 90% of interpersonal issues, it's clear that they aren't working in this case. I have a theory about why that may be. It's something that comes up fairly frequently with new players.
RPG Confusion, aka "Is This a Video Game?"
My suspicion is that your player is unaware of the differences between a collaborative storytelling game like 5e and an RPG video game (Assasin's Creed, Grand Theft Auto, etc.). In a video game, the creators have made the world and handed it to the players. They typically no longer have any direct control once the players enter the scene. They have pre-defined the type of interactions that are permitted and placed bounds as they wish. If the game makers allow you to kill NPCs through a variety of gory means, then that is clearly meant to be part of the game and no one will get upset with a player for playing that way. If the game allows you to sexually assault characters, steal from them, etc., then those things are a valid form of play, and everyone can expect that players are consenting to be exposed to that sort of content.
Story-telling games are great because they don't have the restrictions that video games have. You can, quite literally, "do anything you want." However, that freedom requires boundaries that the players have to set to make sure that everyone is having a good time. You're obviously familiar with this concept, but I think the issue with your player is that he doesn't comprehend the difference. He is used to being able to do whatever he wants as long as the game physically allows it.
How to Talk About The Issue
My recommendation is to have another 1-1 talk with him and cover some of the following points openly and honestly:
- He is preventing the other players from having a good time - This game is collaborative. The number zero rule is that a player cannot do anything that takes enjoyment away from anyone else at the table. His actions are violating this rule. Give a specific example of something he did or said that made someone else uncomfortable. (get their permission to use the example first)
- He is in charge of his character's actions and personality - Saying "but that's what my character would do!" is a cop-out. He is choosing to make his character an asshole. If he wants to play an asshole, that's fine (maybe). But he needs to do so in a way that doesn't violate rule number 0.
- You are happy to help him brainstorm in character actions - If he is having difficulty thinking of things to do that wouldn't break rule 0, he should ask for help! There are so many ways to be an asshole. Surely you or someone else at the table would have some ideas for more interesting things that a chaotic evil character can do.
- He is welcome to roll a new character - If he feels like it is just in his character's nature to rape and murder, then maybe that character should be caught and face justice and he should play as someone else who doesn't want those things.
- You want him to have a good time - What is he hoping to get out of playing this game? Probably fun time with friends? Maybe make new friends? Emphasize how playing within the group's rules will help him meet those goals. If his main goal in being there is having a power fantasy, then this just isn't the game for him.
- Video games vs co-op story-telling games - For another example of this, see the "Minecraft example" below.
- You want him there, but if it isn't going to work out, you may have to ask him to leave - be upfront with this possibility. Tell him that you are confident that he can be a positive influence on the group and that you're sure he has a lot to offer. Mention an example of something good that he did. An actually funny thing he said, a piece of creativity, etc. as evidence that you know he can contribute in a positive way. However, be clear that if his presence is making other people have less fun, he won't be able to keep playing. That would be a huge bummer for everyone since they'd lose out on him being there.
- Ask him to think about it and get back to you with any questions - Let him know that you are happy to talk more about it if he wants, but that the ball is in his court, and it's time for him to commit to having fun. Tell him you'll see him at the next session, and mention that you're excited to see how the party will (handle lots of enemies, get the secret from the minister, face the dragon, etc.). Leaving on an anticipatory note will encourage him to look forward to the future.
The Minecraft Example
I teach at a technology summer camp, and I often play a simplified version of 5E with my overnight campers (age 10-17). With the younger kids especially, they can have trouble keeping in mind appropriate behavior and understanding co-op games, just like your player. I talk about Minecraft to get them to start thinking about how to help other players have fun. You're welcome to use this directly (with maybe more adult language), port it into some other game, or ignore it.
Nearly everyone has played at least a little bit of Minecraft. It's a really great game. It's most fun when you can play with other people and build together or compete against each other. But playing together can require a lot of trust too. It opens up your world, a place that you've spent hours building and making just so, to people who could come in and destroy it.
We're doing just that. When we play a game like Dungeons and Dragons we are all creating a world together. Everyone contributes and has opinions about what the world is and what it should be. In Minecraft, when we play together, we establish ground rules to prevent anyone from destroying the things that someone else has built (like no TNT) or to set when destruction will be allowed (maybe you can kill someone if they agree to it). When we play this game, we do the same thing. When you hurt someone else's character without permission from them, when you act in ways that the group has agreed are not allowed, or when you ignore what other players want, you are no longer working as a team. Instead, you are destroying parts of the world that those players have built. And that makes the game less fun for everyone, even you.
His Response and Some Further Thoughts
I'm not sure how he will respond to your open discussion of the issue. While we hope that all adults know how to cooperate and how to take constructive feedback, it's not always universally true. There's a possibility that he might rage quit. There's a possibility that he might think about your words and make real change. Who knows. But if he gets angry when you tell him the truth, then you really didn't want him in the group.
In the best case scenario, he thinks about what you say, realizes that you're right, and changes his behavior. You will likely still have to remind him periodically or cut him off if he crosses a line, but that's okay. If he's trying, then you can work with him.
In future situations of this sort, it may be useful to consider not letting new players play characters who are chaotic or evil. I find that it just never seems to go well for their first game. I'm sure that some GMs don't have an issue with it, but I personally do so I just have that policy. As a note, I also never let a player play as a character that is inherently cruel. That's just not a character trait that I'm interested in exploring.
As you guide players through character creation, feel free to limit their ideas in these or other ways. In my experience, doing so will actually help push them to be even more creative and craft more interesting characters that are not simply stereotypes.
Good luck! I hope that everything works out!
Best Answer
Retcon the session, just this once
I empathise with your dilemma: the session itself is already immersion-damaging, but so would be retconning it. You can't win either way, so what's the path of least damage? Given the details you wrote, putting myself in your shoes as an immersion-centric player and GM, I would absolutely call for a one-time, exceptional-circumstances do-over.
The balance of issues
First, here are the elements of your question that I'm considering, pro and con, and how they're relevant:
Those all, except for (5), overwhelmingly shout "retcon!" Since I believe (5) can be mitigated with a solid rationale, this interpretation of the details of your question heavily tips the balance toward retconning the session.
Rationale
In-world causes of events were drowned out almost entirely by out-of-game causes of events. Effectively, this session wasn't even about the stuff in your game. That's not going to happen very often—possibly never again—and sets a very high bar for ever considering a retcon in the future. That should give you a solid bulwark against the temptation to start on a slippery slope of retconning for lesser reasons.
So, with that rationale to justify this retcon, but not lesser temptations to retcon in the future, retcon the session. Wind back the clock, cut out the piece of timeline irreparably damaged by an invasion of causality from a foreign reality, and settle back into the true-to-itself reality that the game had already established before this unfortunate series of events.