I don’t like games where randomness dominates. Some can be fun, if we take them completely unseriously, but the less your actions ultimately matter, the less interesting the whole thing is. As the non-controlled element becomes larger, the virtue of winning goes to zero and the frustration of losing goes to infinity (or also zero, as you stop caring). “A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”
Slot machines give you the same zero input as Candyland, but people like them. One thing they know is to present only wins, not losses. If you lose, nothing happens. There is no penalty. Yes, you paid to play, but the machine is going to keep that fact as far from the outcome as possible. When you win, you get a big celebration with flashing lights and sirens and coins pumping out. You are completely helpless, but you never get a negative, so it’s just free money, right?
Uncontrollable negatives have strong effects. I have read about studies  of test animals given electric shocks. They didn’t get an “off” lever or any reason, it just happened. They pretty quickly just cowered and waited for it to happen again. No point in doing anything, it won’t help, just lie there and take it. Games are quite big on pointing out when you lose. There will be a big GAME OVER screen, death animations, an NPC mocking you, some number on the screen going down, etc. When loss in a game is uncontrollable, there will be a variety of negatives to encourage your learned helplessness. Unlike the monkey in the cage, you have the option of turning off the game and not waiting for the next round.
At Ravious’s suggestion, I have tried out Desktop Dungeons. I didn’t enjoy it. It is too random, particularly as you start challenges: difficulty is supposed to be extremely high, so very small differences in starting conditions will lead to impossible situations. Worse, because the map starts hidden and exploring is how you recover health, you will not find out that you have an unbeatable map until a ways in, and the very act of exploring may be what makes it unbeatable. And knowing that, how satisfying can victory be, when you know the game flipped a coin to decide whether it was possible?
Some map configurations are entirely impossible because of enemy layout. Others are just so for your race/class combination. Then there are times when you turn left in the dark and something theoretically possible becomes impossible when you do not randomly pick the right path to victory. Bleeding edge difficulty plus randomness yields uncontrollable failure. If you can play mathematically perfectly with no mistakes and still lose, you may have a problem with game balance or design. I have this same feeling in Elements occasionally, like the games when you get no quanta (mana) or when the cards you need are on the bottom of your deck. At least the rounds are very quick, you have deck-building control over probability, and you expect randomness in card games rather than pretending you can out-think it. (And it is unsatisfying to beat a False God that drew three towers the entire game, and frustrating when you draw only two.)
The Enchanted Cave is an example of a roguelike that shows the map so you can see if you have a winnable situation, although the difficulty is much lower so you might have a different kind of “unsatisfying.”