You still have 36 outcomes, it's just many of them equate to each other.
No, a roll of 2d6 has 12 outcomes, a roll of "d66" has 36 outcomes, each with a flat percentage of ~3%
If you are claiming that it is only the total number that is considered the outcomes then for a skill check of 8+ you might just as well say you have two outcomes, Pass or Fail since 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are the same outcome, Pass and 7 or less are all Fail.
Not the same thing at all, stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
An 8+ target number has a 42% chance of success with no modifiers, if you want to consider it as two potential outcomes then success is 42%, fail is 58%.
If you are using gross effect there are a maximum of 6 outcomes from Exceptional Fail to Exceptional Success.
Exceptional is usually for more than 2 standard deviations, but the limits of the 2d6 roll don't allow for that.
If you are using effect number (e.g. for damage) on an 8+ roll then that could be 6 outcomes of 0 to +4 plus Fail or if you are measuring the level of failure it might be even more outcomes as the fail is also graduated. In a skill chain there are 6 outcomes as they are rendered to -3 to +3, but depending on the difficulty man of those might be out of scope.
Six successful outcomes, each with their own percentage chance of occurrence.
With a boon or bane then you are treating it as 2 dice (or 3 really) and then assessing the final score. This moves the 2d6 roll into something far more interesting.
Boon and bane are a great mechanic, what isn't so great is a PC with a DM of+10 rolling against a standard target of 8... this is especially noticeable in space combat.
I think that greater use of the boon/bane mechanic in place of stacking DMs would create a better resolution system for 2d6.
You could play the same games with a D20 as ultimately "outcome" is a game effect that is dependent on some interpreted number.
Or use percentile dice.
If all you players have all the toys and are making skill checks at +5 then why are you requiring them to roll routine checks anyway. They should be making them every time. Traveller was a roll by exception game.
The game assumes a standard difficulty of 8+, perhaps shifting the standard difficulty to 12+ would make for a "better game".
If you are bothered by the power of augments then don't play traveller like a cyber punk game. If you are then it is entirely reasonable to apply severe difficulties to the activities that require cyber wear to achieve.
You don't get to tell me how to play or referee, all I am pointing out is what is allowed by the rules as written. Traveller characters with cyberware and other augments are becoming street level super heroes rather than blue collar space workers...
You should see how augmented some of the characters in my Culture setting are.
Also Traveller characters are retirees and aren't expected to advance significantly after retirement. Once you get to double figures for level in 5th things start to become easy if you continue throwing the same challenges you did when the characters were 1st level. Conventionally Travellers are already high level. If you send a marine with 5 terms under his belt into a combat zone, you would expect him to survive - since he has survived 20 years of similar activity already. He should be hitting with nigh on every shot at normal combat ranges. That won't help him find a fault in some software or help him sail a boat.
A 5 term marine and a 1 term scout both face the same chances when their opponent snipes them from surprise with a laser rifle...
You can play quite happily with moderate challenges after only a single term. It is an obsession with "you are only competent once you are getting a skill DM of +2" and then insisting on playing scenarios where those are the only challenges that is the problem.
The problem as I see it is the game allowing easy access to very high DMs via equipment and augmentation.
