Indeed, it’s true that many narrative gamers think strategically and narrate tactical approaches.
What I mean by tactics is the “Yes, but actually no” approach. In a tactical situation, you are trying to restrict the opponent’s options. Whether you are outmaneuvering them in a business deal or cutting down their foot soldiers, you want to expand your options while narrowing theirs. That’s just what it takes to win. This is fundamentally different from a narrative game. You might narrate a loss to your character for the purpose of a narrative arc. You’re still “winning” even as your character suffers, because it’s all about the personalities and events.
But that goes against the very point of a tactical game: winning according to the rules of the system. This is why tactical games like DnD have so many min-maxing players. That’s what the game encourages and supports. You can still make subpar choices for narrative reasons, And DMs can reward those choices tactically. So I was being a bit dramatic with the post title and the question “Do we even want these players in the same room?”. Most RPGs combine both narrative and tactical play and many do it well.
But there is a fundamental tension between these two. Tactical play is the stuff of board games and wargaming. Narrative play is the stuff of RPGs. Even many hexcrawl RPGs play more like wargames. Players can make tactical choices and fully enjoy the game without any in-world narration or roleplaying whatsoever.