That’s a very good point, rolling with it and ignoring the dice are indeed both supported by the rules, and do have advantages as well as drawbacks.
These sections are actually really good to read and ponder about your style of DMing, I think. They also help seeing a lot of the debates on these forums in a very different light, since we have very different styles and actually we often end up debating something that hinges more on different styles than on the actual rules being debated.
So, I’ll concede that the DM who simply decides the goblin automatically succeeds at intimidating the players into giving him their gold doesn’t entirely lack support in doing so, and likewise the DM who puts it to a roll doesn’t entirely lack support in doing so either. I still think the Role of the Dice section is presenting the middle path as having the benefits of both methods and the drawback of neither, but nonetheless it does seem to be offering support for all three approaches.
For me the middle path is like all compromises, it certainly lacks the drawbacks of the approaches, but it also fails to deliver on the benefits. In this specific case, I would find it a bit disconcerting as a player if the DM sometimes decided to roll and sometimes not based apparently on a whim of his part. If there is a logic there, it has to be explained, otherwise the extreme approaches have at the very least the added advantage of consistency.
Sure, and those things generally have specific rules for how they work, which make them exceptions to the general action resolution process.
Indeed, but the thing is that this might not be apparent from a player's perspective when they happen, see below.
That’s not something I have personally experienced. People I’ve played with are generally comfortable that sometimes specific effects such as magic can indeed force their characters to do things they might not want to do. As long as it’s not crossing any meta-game boundaries (which should be hashed out before the start of play, most likely in session 0), I haven’t seen it cause issues at the table.
And neither I have, still we have ardent defenders of player agency on these forums, and people explaining that they have walked away from tables because of that.
I think this should be clear from the DM’s description of the action, no?
Not necessarily. If you look at the SAC, for example there is the example of suggestion in which you might not even know that it was a magical compulsion if you did not witness the caster actually casting the spell (it was a specialty of my halfling sorceress with subtle spell): "Some spells are so subtle that you might not know you were ever under their effects. A prime example of that sort of spell is suggestion. Assuming you failed to notice the spellcaster casting the spell, you might simply remember the caster saying, “The treasure you’re looking for isn’t here. Go look for it in the room at the top of the next tower.” You failed your saving throw, and off you went to the other tower, thinking it was your idea to go there. You and your companions might deduce that you were beguiled if evidence of the spell is found."
This is where a bit of player forbearance and "playing along as I trust the DM" is really important.