My thoughts on this subject can be summed up by pointing at Lord of the Rings.
I greatly enjoy the final denouement of Samwise Gamgee, greatest hero in Middle Earth, masterfully portrayed by Sean Astin, uttering the famous line "I can't carry it for you...but I can carry you."
Its emotionally gratifying and, from a narrative standpoint, is the perfect capstone to a story within the story that, up to this point, hasn't necessarily been all that exciting or fun. Sam and Frodo's Journey post Fellowship is downright depressing even, but its worth it, because the uplift of Sam's determination in the end is just so great.
But I can only stand to take in that journey once in a while, and I'll watch the Ents wreck Saruman or the glorious Battles of Helms Deep and Pellenor Fields over and over. The political turmoil and world spanning stakes are excellently chewable and repeatable. Ill even just pull up individual scenes from time to time just to take them in on their own.
Who doesn't love hearing the Rohirrim cry DEAAAAATH as they make 10,000 Orcs and Goblins soil themselves?
I think a great deal of players, for whatever reason, get a bit too caught up in trying to do Sam and Frodo when the game is more about Aragorn and Gandalf, and miss that its Aragorn and Gandalf that bring the excitement to these kinds of stories, even if you want to do Sam and Frodo at the same time.
And beyond that, the whole discussion over rules framing what the game is "about" tend to miss the forest for the trees I think.
Of course the game is about combat, because the genre's of fiction it systematized into a game are also largely about Combat in the context of Adventuring.
A game like Blades in the Dark, while very adjacent in genre to that of DND, can deemphasize combat because its own genre doesn't emphasize it much.
Even in media examples of that genre where combat is a big part of the story, its still ultimately a relatively minor part in terms of whats being conveyed through the medium.
For instance, Heat is a heist film thats famous for its visceral and hyper-realistic gun battles. But it isn't really a movie about gun battles, its a movie about the turmoil the events of the movie have on the lives and relationships of the opposing Detectives and Criminals.
You could, and it has been done, do stories that skip the exciting combat and just focus on the drama (Reservoir Dogs is a great example from Film), but the drama has to be very well executed to be worth it. While Heat doesn't slack in that department at all, its excellent thrills would give it leeway.
DND at the end of the day has always been a kitbash of sword and sorcery, epic fantasy, and a smidge of pulp science fiction; the genre of Appendix N.
All three genres are very combat driven in every medium they occur in, and ergo its only logical that when systematized into a game, combat ends up being the focus.
Theres been heist and crime fiction that doesnt even feature any kind of violence at all. Blades when systematizing those genres (among others) can get away with a huge deemphasis on combat.
And it has to be said, while Blades and DND are wholly different animals mechanically speaking, Blades and Ironsworn are not, and Ironsworn and its sister game Starforged go back into the same sorts of Genres that DND is systematizing.
And what do you know, both games have a considerable Combat emphasis, an emphasis Id wager is, relative to their respective base systems, equal in scope to what DND is doing.
While how Ironsworn and DND accomplish combat are dramatically different, when actually played they end up providing pretty similar stories. Thrilling combat interspersed with minor drama and world exploration.
Where Ironsworn has a bit more of the latter two, DND has a bit more of the former.
At no point for either of these games though, would I describe them as "just" being about one thing or another. I wouldn't even describe them like that at all; Id emphasize the genre. Ironsworn is a dark epic fantasy game where DND is a mildly campy Appendix N game.