So I guess that’s actually several questions, and they each have different answers.

Why does combat feature heavily in D&D? It doesn’t. Or at least, not necessarily. How much or little it features is dependent on your DM.

Ok, so why has it historically been featured heavily? Because of D&D’s lineage. The game evolved mechanically from wargames, where combat was the whole thing, and thematically from works like Conan the Barbarian and Tolkein, where fighting monsters featured prominently.

Why so many types of monsters, then, if works like The Hobbit only had a half dozen or so? Because The Hobbit is a single story, whereas D&D is a framework for creating lots of stories. Maybe one short campaign or a campaign arc has as many monsters as a Tolkein story, but then you go on to the next arc, the next campaign, and you need something new. You can obviously recycle lots; orc bandits are different from orc soldiers are different from orc cultists. But with (tens of?) thousands of games going on continuously, year after year, there’s always a demand for new content to slot in, and monster design is often a handy thing for DMs to outsource. Hence, there are a lot of kinds of monster because there is demand for them.

Are you asking why there are so many kinds of monsters, or why monsters appear so frequently in the campaigns you’ve played in?

That doesn’t work for 40k, to my understanding. It’s a miniatures combat game

That’s kind of important to the story though.

Mhhh…I believe in the right tool for the right job. So there isn’t really an ideal system, for instance, just the best system for what I’m trying to accomplish in a given game.

Sometimes that can be fun, but only if everyone at the table is onboard for a wild tangent. If the other players are bored as shit while the special snowflake starts a unicorn breeding operation, it’s time to use that No. And you, the DM, are included in that too; if your players want to drag you off to write every book in the library and that’s not fun for you, you have the right to say “hey maybe you should play the game I made for you instead.”

You decide that if an when the players make it a priority with their choices.

Addendum to the “Are you sure you want to do that” bullet: if a player ever does something that seems nonsensical to you, ask them what they expect to achieve by doing that. Understanding their motivation is often what resolves the miscommunication and/or allows you to steer them towards a better way to do what they’re trying to do.

I read once that the earliest edition(s?) didn’t have Rogue as a separate class, that everyone would be searching for traps and such. And when Rogue was added with the explicit ability to detect traps, it caused a crises because suddenly that implied that no one else had that ability.

It’s the cats you gotta worry about.

There are a couple ways to get auto-generated transcripts from youtube (eg https://www.howtogeek.com/793947/how-to-get-the-transcript-of-a-youtube-video/ ), but there are enough errors and bad UI that I find reading them to be more miserable than just watching the video.

Main quest? Weird tangent? They’re the same picture!

God you just described my prep in a nutshell. This is how they ended up fighting an orchestra

He even did the full chest bump thing. And then in case there was any doubt, he did the whole gesture again.

There are ways. You could, for example, set up a bbeg where that’s his whole deal. The townsfolk are scared of this guy because he has the supernatural power to just kill you, straight-up. Maybe the questline leading up to their encounter involves the players finding defenses or counters or sabotaging his supply of spell components or whatever, such that, if they DO get power-word-killed, it’s because they had ample opportunities to not, and failed to take them.

You absolutely do not have to RP this. You can say “No.” You can say “Ok, you go off and do that, what’s everyone else doing?”

I’m not one of them, but I empathize with all the GMs that are just sick of dealing with those particular kinds of misconduct that crop up with new players.

This is silly. EVERY system can be exploited, and every group should expect eachother to act in good faith. The difference between systems is what parts are done for you and what parts you do yourself, and every group is going to want a different assortment of those pieces. You’re just mad that some groups get what they want out of DnD. You are the problem person in this image.

What was the game

Sisko and Kirk have already had a crossover episode, so I have to assume the entire journey would just be Sisko pitching tribbles at Kirk.