No.It's less about self-censoring and more about not sabotaging the agreed upon plan. If there is a need to alter course, the players can have a quick side bar to discuss.
We agree to it in advance. Hence, if someone thinks a negotiation won't be fun, they have an opportunity to express that. It's a group decision and they are part of that decision.
They were part of that decision at the time it was made - assuming that such agreement was in truth - but that doesn't necessarily bind a character who's not known for keeping his-her word or has a history of taking unilateral and-or unpredictable actions.
Unilateral action is always in play, and no matter how much you might hope it doesn't happen there's going to be times that it will.
That's all cool, but if someone decided to attack the guy anyway then so be it: the guy gets attacked. You talker-types are just the distraction.Just tonight, we staged an ambush for someone we thought was a murderer. But when he arrived, he behaved unexpectedly and we, through pantomiming, agreed that someone should approach him and talk to him. As my character is the least threatening, I was elected. So I had a 10 minute conversation while the other players watched. Once I was satisfied that an ambush wasn't necessary, I waved them out to join. I've similarly waited patiently while other players have done scenes that I wasn't a part of.
As a player, often it isn't...but sometimes a character's boredom threshold can be considerably less than its player's.I don't think it's boring at all
Here it's largely just par for the course.and moreover it's simply good table manners IMO. Players shouldn't typically make unilateral decisions that impact the entire group.