I agree in the abstract, but are you saying an RPG shouldn’t have big bads that last more than one set of encounters?
I don't think anyone is advocating a series of unconnected encounters as a mode of play -- although I imagine someone does it and likes it.
No Saurons, in other words, or larger narrative framings? And no settings with a larger trajectory or endpoint, like a doomsday situation?
However, I am saying that a game doesn't need a Sauron or Doomsday at all to be compelling.
I’m just trying to figure out how fully sandbox you’re going/advocating, and whether you think that’s sort of inherently the most satisfying approach to running, because otherwise people aren’t embracing what makes TTRPGs unique.
What makes RPGs unique (IMO obvs) is twofold: a) player agency is the most important element of play, and b) the "story" unfolds in unexpected ways for everyone involved, including the GM. Take away either of these and you are better off with a good board game, computer game or choose-you-own-adventure book.
but also, gotta be honest—some of those notional story beats sound hella boring to me! Somebody made a 10th level spell? I would fall asleep at the table if that was the big epic conclusion of someone’s character arc. I’m maybe unfairly harping on one example, but if that accomplishment didn’t somehow tie into Bob’s estate recovery or other big goals, then to me it’s really just characters sort of pursuing things in parallel, and hanging out together for purely transactional reasons.
To each their own, but remember that motivation will inform everything the player does. Every time a choice is made between going on this quest or that quest, brenda is going to be trying to figure out what brings her closer to completely inventing a whole new tier of magic. It might drive her to ally with dangerous beings, betray her friends and loved ones, turn her back on other needs, etc...