I do get a bit tired of Hanabi when the "fixated" players all agree on a bunch of conventions ahead of time (e.g., if you don't know what to do or you are forced to play, always play your leftmost card, and put your most recently drawn cards on the right side of your hand).

I much prefer the element of chaos and trying to give people clues based on what you think they, based on their individual personality, would do.

Optimizing a game is fun in its own right (my colleague even published a paper with the best known Hanabi strategy: https://doi.org/10.4169/math.mag.88.5.323), but then trying to use that strategy to play the game is immensely dull.

You might enjoy Spirit Island, a cooperative game designed explicitly to make that "quarterbacking" strategy infeasible and encourage more interesting player interaction. Players have asymmetrical abilities and power progression, so it's hard to micromanage everyone, and everyone has enough choices to make that even the "I think we can win this turn if..." conversation generally depends on each person making their own reasonable choices rather than one person planning out the whole turn.

Some of that is just human condition. Some want to lead, some want to be led.

Ages ago I worked in qualitative market research. Which is like a game where the researcher is trying to find the truth. But in focus groups, for all kinds of reasons, some participants dominate the conversation. Answering first and forming a box for other respondents to fit in. And next thing you know the whole group loves blue pants. Even when they don't, because particatjng is not just voicing your opinion but also engaging with dominant-Steve who's trying to be the center of attention and curry favour with the researcher (and Steve ruins the whole FG)

The game mentioned contains multiple ways to lose