If you actually have to use that much math more than once in a blue moon, you’re doing it wrong.

There’s no grid in the sky, though

• Deplete their resources by putting the fight at the end of a dungeon or other chain of different kinds of encounters

• Higher level monsters

• Smart enemies. Sit down and think about what they do as if you were playing them in someone else’s game. Dumb dragons land and get murdered, smart dragons stay in the air, flame the party, and have been abusing contingency spells for the last millennium.

• Stakes other than player death. Sure we can kill these bandits, but can we do it before they get away with the orphanage fund? What if they take hostages? What are we going to do about all these fires they set on the way in?

• Make it feel more dangerous than it is by use of good description. A hippo is a relatively low level monster, but when that one player that knows how scary they are IRL realizes what you’re describing, they will crap their pants.

I only recall seeing the hallway bunks in Lower Decks, and I think that was intended as a joke.

What is a “domain game”?

I don’t think “reasoning” is the right perspective to examine Picard’s comment from. He’s not making a debate point, Picard is politely telling Ralph that he’s acting like an assclown and that it WILL stop.

The DM can not metagame, definitionally

The secret to writing (or playing) characters that are smarter than you are is that you can take your time coming up with what they do. Maybe in-game your character has a razor wit and would have a snappy comeback for any situation. Out of game you’ve got a list of pre-prepared retorts you can bust out as needed.

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?

I want to see a Trek episode shot like one of those Eddie Murphy films where he plays all the characters, using Jeffrey Combs

Looking good! Those pirates have a pretty sweet setup!

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.”

Fantasy Dexter. Actually loves murder, but instead just gets their kicks vicariously by stealing the memories of murderers

Queercoding villains to make them seem dangerous and deviant to the people of the time (and those that are still stuck in that time). Admittedly, the people making that decision probably weren’t conscious of that being why they thought eyeliner made him look villainous.