Risk Response and RPGs

I tell you, reading Robin D. Laws's blog is educating.

"Risk In RPGs

I am less interested in categorical distinctions between RPG game designs than I am in those that describe what actually happens during play. This is part because, as a designer, I’m more interested in providing tools that work than in adhering to an aesthetically or theoretically coherent framework. It also goes to the old saw about the rules not being the game, but the set of tools used to build the game.

One distinction between RPG play moments I’ve been thinking about a lot lately is the one describing the players’ and GMs’ attitude toward risk. Does the play environment demand risk aversion on the players’ part, or is risk aversion a problem that leads to an unsatisfying experience?

Risk aversion is essential to tactical play. Players are expected to seek the greatest benefit at the lowest cost. The lower the risk, the lower the cost they stand to pay for their actions. The primal example of this style is the dungeon crawl. You aim to collect maximum treasure and experience points, while carefully shepherding your various resources: hit points, spells, etc. The major tactical decisions are all about timing: 1) when to use your limited resources and 2) when to give up and go home to recover lost hit points and spells. In other words, you keep going till you have to use your fireball, and then you split.

Risk seeking is essential to narrative play. The rules of drama decree that characters are placed under pressure, and are moved along a cycle of victories and reversals, the stakes growing ever higher until it all comes to a head in the climax. If you’re really emulating storytelling structure, everything gets as bad as it can get, until the heroes turn it around at the last climactic moment. Under this play environment, risk aversion is an impediment to forward motion—the characters have to get into trouble in order to get out of it. Although the characters shouldn’t appear suicidally reckless, extended planning sessions are counterproductive under this paradigm. In fiction, elaborate planning sessions are setups for reversals. Either the plan goes horribly wrong (as in most heist films), or the plan seems to go horribly wrong but is in fact a cover for the deeper, better plan, which succeeds in a surprising way: see the Ocean’s movies.) [sic.]

Because of the vicarious nature of the RPG experience, we tend to be much more risk averse as players than we want characters to be in traditional entertainment. Suffering a setback that would be par for the course in a dramatic adventure story feels like a sock in the jaw. If the GM didn’t give us a chance to get the benefit without the risk, we might even complain that we’re being railroaded.

Needed: better tools to help players embrace the judicious risk-seeking necessary for success in narrative game environments."

What I'm contemplating is:
While I see ways to adapt this approach to more tactical games, it seems that narrative playstyles are (obviously?) best suited to games where narrative play is already accounted for in the rules design. Would it be more difficult to use the above advice in more tactical RPGs, such as D&D, than it would be in games like HeroQuest?