Disliking Modern Game Design: Bad Engagement Due to External Locus of Control

This has been bugging me a bit as a player and i think i can put into design ideas: a lot of modern games try to farm engagement by putting the locus of control outside of the player in some ways. I think this is why there is anger and toxicity at times. examples.

i dislike roguelikes because there seem to be two sides of them. side 1 is the players contribution to gameplay. If it's a side scroller, that's the typical run, jump, and shoot enemies. Side 2 is the randomness; how level, encounter, and item generation affect the run.

Side 1 generally gets mastered quickly to the players skill and then size 2 gets an outsized impact. The average player can't really counteract randomness and not all runs end up realistically winnable. You can lose as easily as choosing one wrong option near the games start if the item god doesn't favor you.

example 2 is a pve mmo.

after player skill, you end up with two aspects outside your locus. 1 is other players; beyond a point, your good play can't counteract their bad play. this usually is confined to hard content.

2 is more insidious. you wake up on patch day to find they nerfed your favorite class heavily, and added a battle pass that forces you to try all content to get the new shinies.

you are now losing control to the dev; in many cases you need to constantly change to keep getting enjoyment to external factors not related to mastery. hence forum complaints about the game being ruined.

third example is online pvp, which is the mmo problem on steroids because both other players and nerfs have far more power in those games. PvE you often have easy modes or have better chance to influence a run, pvp often demands severely more skill and can be unwinnable. sometimes player advice is 60% of matches are win or lost outside of your control, try and get better at the 30% that are up to your contribution.

*

the problem is this creates an external locus of control where you are not really engaging in mastery of a game as opposed to constantly "playing the best hand you are dealt." this external locus is a lot more engaging and addicting but also enraging because you can't really get better.

player skill plateaus quickly and unlike what streamers tell you not many people have the "god eyes" to carry a run or perceive how to make it winnable. you functionally get slot machine game play where instead of pulling an arm, you play a basic game instead.

the internal locus is the player playing a fixed game and developing skills to overcome static levels. the player is in control in the sense he isn't relying on more than his understanding and skill in the game. if there are random elements they are optional or kept to low levels of play/found in extreme difficulties. he changes more than the game does.

i think the opposite is you hit a point where the engagement transitions into helplessness; you write off a slay the spire run because you are at a node distribution you know will kill you because rng hasn't given you powerful synergies. trying it just gets you killed 30 minutes later. that can be enraging and i think having so much out of your hands is why pvp and pve online games get toxic: players try to reassert control in any way they can.

i think this is why i love/hate a lot of these games. engagement is really high but over time you resent it. all games you kind of conform to its ruleset and challenge but these have a illusion of mastery or control and the player is punished or blamed for losses despite having markedly little chance to control them.

thoughts?