Apparantly, the suspense of the die roll to see whether each actor is too incompetent to hit the target in front of them is terribly exciting for DnD players.
As most video game players don' feel that way, most video games don't use both to-hit & damage RNGs, but simply vary the damage, and increase the HP to compensate ( hence most bosses are high HP "bullet sponges" ).
It's exciting because there's a degree of permanence, of failure.
If you average out every hit it comes down to basic math: survive x rounds and you win.
No. It's exciting because you think it's exciting ( assuming you do ), and not so if you find it frustrating.
There is no right or wrong, just a matter of personal opinion; my observation has been that, generally, DnD players do find the system exciting ( otherwise, presumably, they would play something else ), and video game players generally expect and want something different ( which is why they don't play DnD ).
Personally, I played the original DnD,ADnD and 2e, and found the high RNG variance precluded any real application of thought to combat; not at all like chess or other deterministic games of strategic combat. Sadly, the latest version of DnD has still not rectified the wild variation in possible outcomes. A good example is the critical hit, which SHOULD ( by the very nature of being "critical" ) always do significant damage, but in DnD can do as little as 2 damage.
I'm not suggesting that I like any particular video game system more, and I'm not sure that I even know what I would most like in a fantasy combat system; most systems have "something" I like. In the case of 5e, I like the reorganized magic system, but find the rest of combat to be a poor fit for the sort of fluid video game RPGs I enjoy.
However, regardless of how much some players may like "true" DnD gameplay, I can completely understand why others find it anannoying or frustrating game of chance.
