In coordination games, initiative and freedom can become disadvantages. [contrarian]
These are also games in which, though secrecy may play a strategic role, there is some essential need for the signaling of intentions and the meeting of minds. Finally, they are games in which what one player can do to avert mutual damage affects what another player will do to avert it, so that it is not always an advantage to possess initiative, knowledge, or freedom of choice.
DEFINE: Distinguishes coordination games, which require signaling intentions and meeting minds, from secrecy-heavy strategic games.
Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, loc. 202