DM Q&A: Skill: Bluff and when to roll.

[Lokarn]

Yea, too many players and DM's have differing thoughts on this skill, and just when to roll it.

I want to ask the question: Who should be the person to "call" for the roll.

The person doing the bluffing? IE is in disguise, or the person(s) viewing said disguise?

Should a bluff roll be made by every character who is in disguise each time they come into contact with a new character?

My main question is, who's responsibilty is it to "call" for a roll? And When.

[Munroe]

It's the responsibility of the person detecting to ask for a roll.

This person should not ask for a roll unless there is some reason to be suspicious of another character.

A character in disguise is not enough reason to call for a roll. A character in disguise who raises the other character's suspicion though words or actions is enough reason to ask for a roll.

Seeing through the non-magical disguise does not reveal who the disguised character is, only that the disguised character is in disguise.

True Seeing grants no benefit against non-magical disguises but auto-succeeds against purely magical disguises and may be enough reason to allow for a check on a disguise that uses both magical and mundane means.

As a side note, when employing a mundane disguise, I personally encourage rolling a Bluff check in private when you don the disguise to determine the general quality of the disguise. It is possible, after all, that your disguise is just bad.

[Munroe]

To clarify, I am speaking ONLY of someone attempting to disguise themselves to not be recognized as themselves, not as someone attempting to pass as someone else.

If a character is attempting to disguise themselves as someone they clearly aren't, be it a specific person or a specific group to which they do not belong, that alone could be grounds for suspicion among people who are familiar with the impersonated group.

To me this goes beyond simple disguise though and into the realm of impersonation.

[Lokarn]

Thank you Munroe.

[Munroe]

Got this from another player:

As its related, could you elaborate on the basis for requesting a bluff roll? I feel this part is lost and many people expect the bluff roll as something more automatic like a reflex save roll. Just as I would not expect an opposing player to respond to my intimidate roll until substantial RP was involved, I generally do not believe a bluff roll is necessary without a reasonable IC basis. In that I have received requests from players when using a fake name and they are comparing it to the floaty one which I have subsequently denied if this is their sole basis in making the request. In my mind the basis for "seeing through" a disguise must be based on in character knowledge not an ooc observation. So obviously comparing the floaty name or "trying" to catch someone in a lie because you know oocly they arent who they say they are seems to be an OOC response to RP. I'd also suggest going to additional attempts in an effort to "discover" IC what you know to be a disguise or lie OOCly is bad form. So in my example above using a false name (as compared to the floaty name) and the other player decides to ICly *gets close and looks under hood* when they as a general practice dont do that for every other player who wears a hood is bad form. I'd like your take on it.

I don't really have a lot to say in response to this except that it is bad form to request a roll to see through a disguise or lie just because of OOC knowledge. The suspicion should be based on in-character knowledge or observation, not OOC knowledge or observation.

Once a person has in-character reason to doubt a disguise, lie, or other deception is when a bluff (or appropriate substitute) roll should be requested. The suspecting person need not request a roll though, and could just go on living with the uncertainty.

[Lady Frost]

Jan 10, 2010 20:43:46 GMT -5 Munroe said:

It's the responsibility of the person detecting to ask for a roll.

This person should not ask for a roll unless there is some reason to be suspicious of another character.

A character in disguise is not enough reason to call for a roll. A character in disguise who raises the other character's suspicion though words or actions is enough reason to ask for a roll.

Seeing through the non-magical disguise does not reveal who the disguised character is, only that the disguised character is in disguise.

True Seeing grants no benefit against non-magical disguises but auto-succeeds against purely magical disguises and may be enough reason to allow for a check on a disguise that uses both magical and mundane means.

As a side note, when employing a mundane disguise, I personally encourage rolling a Bluff check in private when you don the disguise to determine the general quality of the disguise. It is possible, after all, that your disguise is just bad.

Can this reply be reclarified, please? Has any of the above changed in the past 10 years that would void what's typed above?

[Munroe]

Sept 8, 2020 21:26:23 GMT -5 Lady Frost said:

Jan 10, 2010 20:43:46 GMT -5 Munroe said:

It's the responsibility of the person detecting to ask for a roll.

This person should not ask for a roll unless there is some reason to be suspicious of another character.

A character in disguise is not enough reason to call for a roll. A character in disguise who raises the other character's suspicion though words or actions is enough reason to ask for a roll.

Seeing through the non-magical disguise does not reveal who the disguised character is, only that the disguised character is in disguise.

True Seeing grants no benefit against non-magical disguises but auto-succeeds against purely magical disguises and may be enough reason to allow for a check on a disguise that uses both magical and mundane means.

As a side note, when employing a mundane disguise, I personally encourage rolling a Bluff check in private when you don the disguise to determine the general quality of the disguise. It is possible, after all, that your disguise is just bad.

Can this reply be reclarified, please? Has any of the above changed in the past 10 years that would void what's typed above?

There are formalized rules about disguise posted in the FRC Rules section.  At the time of this reply, I see the rules post was last edited in 2018. 
I've read through them again just now and they don't appear to be in conflict with what's in this DM Q&A thread.  Is there some specific point you feel needs clarification?

Dec 8, 2018 21:44:44 GMT -5 DM Hawk said:

FRC Disguise Rules

Disguised characters have an opportunity to contribute to the intrigue and roleplay of FRC. To help keep Character Disguise encounters fun and fair for everyone on FRC the following rules apply.



1. Disguise Criteria must be met - It's always a good idea to notify the DM channel when wearing a disguise. For a character to be disguised the following must be done at a minimum:

- Cover one's head and face with a hood, helmet, mask, or utilize an Illusion item.

- Wear clothing or armor not commonly worn when the character is not disguised. Don't just dye your armor a different color.

- Avoid speaking or behaving with the character's natural mannerisms.

- Avoid brandishing signature weapon or item by the character.



2. Disguises meeting Criteria should be accepted - If the above criteria are met, the character is considered in disguise. A disguise is considered to be successful unless there is a reason for skepticism.



3. A Disguise Check is required when skepticism is valid - A character who has cause to suspect a disguise is in place may ask for a Disguise Check Roll. Please ask for this roll in private Tells whenever possible but make the rolls public to be seen. It is always a good idea to notify the DM channel when challenging a disguise. Examples where a disguised character may cause others to doubt the disguise include but aren't limited to:

- Speaking

- Behaving as they would when not in disguise, including standing in the same place, having the same posture, etc.

- Behaving abnormally, calling attention to oneself.

- Associating with or aiding characters known to associate with the Disguised Character when not in disguise.

- Verbally or physically acting against those who would be an enemy of the character in the open.

- Casting Spells, Using Magic Items, Using Special abilities or feats known to be used by the disguised character.



4. Disguises can be automatically busted - A disguise is automatically busted when:

- Head covering or Illusion item is removed.

- Clothing or Armor distinctive to the character is worn.

- Speaking in normal voice, accent, or mannerisms.

- Disguised Character admits his identity.

- Disguised Character exhibits knowledge having limited in circulation but which the character would know.

- Brandishing a signature weapon or item.



5. Disguise Checks - The following guidelines will determine the outcome of a Disguise Check when required:

- Disguised Characters normally roll Bluff. Those having Perform may substitute this skill. Clerics with the Trickery Domain may use the Persuade Skill.

- Skeptical Characters challenging the disguise may roll Spot if they are seeing something to give doubt or Listen if they are hearing something to give doubt.

- If the disguise roll is higher or ties the challenging roll, the Disguise is upheld. If the challenging roll is higher than the disguise roll, the disguise is busted.



Please ask a DM if there are any questions about FRC Disguise Rules or share your question in the DM Q&A section here:

frc.proboards.com/board/27/dm-answers

Remember to use common sense and keep the spirit of FRC in mind when interacting with fellow players. The Golden Rule of FRC is to have fun but not at the expense of others.



Thank you,
The FRC Staff

[StabbingNirvana]

The conflict, as I see it, is that ten years ago on the fateful day of Jan 10, 2010, you said:

"Seeing through the non-magical disguise does not reveal who the disguised character is, only that the disguised character is in disguise."

Then two years ago, the disguise rules were expanded stating that a losing roll results in the "disguise being busted". The rules then go and provide examples. The blue text is text from the rules.

------------

3. A Disguise Check is required when skepticism is valid - A character who has cause to suspect a disguise is in place may ask for a Disguise Check Roll. Please ask for this roll in private Tells whenever possible but make the rolls public to be seen. It is always a good idea to notify the DM channel when challenging a disguise. Examples where a disguised character may cause others to doubt the disguise include but aren't limited to:

- Speaking - Creates identification

- Behaving as they would when not in disguise, including standing in the same place, having the same posture, etc. - Creates identification

- Behaving abnormally, calling attention to oneself.

- Associating with or aiding characters known to associate with the Disguised Character when not in disguise. - Opens avenues for identification

- Verbally or physically acting against those who would be an enemy of the character in the open. -Opens avenues for identification

- Casting Spells, Using Magic Items, Using Special abilities or feats known to be used by the disguised character. - Creates identification/avenues for identification

--------

The next point in the rules shows what an automatically busted disguise looks like. Again, the blue is not text in the rules

------------

4. Disguises can be automatically busted - A disguise is automatically busted when:



- Head covering or Illusion item is removed.
-Creates identification


- Clothing or Armor distinctive to the character is worn.
-Creates identification


- Speaking in normal voice, accent, or mannerisms.
-Creates identification


- Disguised Character admits his identity.
-Creates identification


- Disguised Character exhibits knowledge having limited in circulation but which the character would know.
-Creates identification


- Brandishing a signature weapon or item. -Creates identification

------------

Then further down at the end of the rules it says:

------------

- If the disguise roll is higher or ties the challenging roll, the Disguise is upheld. If the challenging roll is higher than the disguise roll, the disguise is busted.

------------

So the updated and expanded rules from two years ago appear to conflict with what you said ten years ago, prior to a standardized disguise rule was set up. Namely that a busted disguise does not result in identification, but the rules, once again, standardized and updated two years ago, appear to state that a busted disguise does result in identification. 

The rules, updated two years ago and not a statement from ten years ago when disguise rules did not exist in any standardized manner, appear to set up the definition that a busted disguise results in identification of some sort or, at minimum, a heavy hint towards the identity.

The rule appears to set up the idea that winning a disguise roll results in a busted disguise. So it all comes down to what "busted" is defined as. The rules appear to read as though failing the disguise check results in the disguise somehow failing to act as a disguise.

[Munroe]

A mundane disguise would be a physical covering, the removal of which is automatic identification. If the covering isn't removed, it would seem a second check might be in order. As I see it, a Listen check would not be hindered by a mundane disguise, while a Spot check might, since the Listen check is not sight-dependent. The rules also say it is always a good idea to notify a DM when wearing a disguise. If you have a DM present for these scenarios, they can adjudicate as-needed.

If there's a conflict in the posted rules and in a DM Q&A that is much older than the posted rules, the rules are correct unless/until they're revised. I don't think this is a rules conflict though. Reading through, I'm not seeing that it says a busted disguise is automatic identification. Identification of the disguised character would still be situational. Many of the reasons to be suspicious are based on already suspecting the disguised character is someone specific.

[StabbingNirvana]

So what you're saying is that rolling and losing your disguise roll results in you still maintaining the benefits of the disguise?

[Munroe]

Sept 9, 2020 4:59:15 GMT -5 StabbingNirvana said:

So what you're saying is that rolling and losing your disguise roll results in you still maintaining the benefits of the disguise?

No, the benefits of a disguise are that people don't know who you are AND that you can move about freely because nobody suspects you of being something other than what you present yourself as.

If your disguise is busted then people know you're disguised. They MIGHT know who you are, or they might not, depending on why they were suspicious in the first place or how the disguise was busted, but they definitely identify you as someone disguised.

[StabbingNirvana]

Sorry, I'm not understanding. So the disguise roll isn't to uphold the authenticity, delivery, and validity of the disguise? Its to determine whether you think the person is disguised or not? Is this what a failed for the disguised/success for the challenger situation should look like?

Steve, Anthony's arch nemesis: Hanging out across the street from the Corner Store twiddling his thumbs.
Anthony, dressed in a Freddy Krueger Mask not on Halloween: Walks up to the Corner Store, starts leaning on the wall.
Steve: Looks at Anthony, who is dressed in a Freddy Krueger Mask while not on Halloween. Has no reason to be suspicious of Anthony who is visibly in a mask of Freddy Krueger.
Anthony's friends show up. They started chatting with eachother in hushed tones, not to be heard by Steve. They do a handshake commonly known to be done between Anthony and his pals.
Steve requests a Disguise Check on the sole suspicion of the handshake because he must believe that Anthony is indeed well intentioned while wearing a Freddy Krueger mask on a day that isn't Halloween.
Steve, only after winning the disguise roll, begins to suspect that Anthony is not the Freddy Krueger he's making himself out to be.

Bad humor aside, here's another example replacing the Freddy Krueger mask with a veiled hood.

Steve, Anthony's arch nemesis: Hanging out across the street from the Corner Store twiddling his thumbs.
Anthony, dressed in a veiled hood: Walks up to the Corner Store, starts leaning on the wall.
Steve: Looks at Anthony, who is dressed in veiled hood. Has no reason to be suspicious of Anthony who is visibly dressed in a veiled hood.
Anthony's friends show up. They started chatting with eachother in hushed tones, not to be heard by Steve. They do a handshake commonly known to be done between Anthony and his pals.
Steve requests a Disguise Check on the sole suspicion of the handshake because he must believe that Anthony is indeed well intentioned while wearing a veiled hood.
Steve, only after winning the disguise roll, begins to suspect that Anthony is wearing a veiled hood.

[mandene]

My follow up question is,

At what point do we recognize the disguised person as the person they are under the disguise?

When a disguise is busted by the disguisee behaving as person X, should lead to my character recognizing that they are disguised person X, not just random someone in disguise.


This is the way I roleplayed few months ago, with Ariean seeing someone bebaving suspiciously. OOC I knew who they were by the floating name, but IC she had no way of knowing or even fully suspecting a disguise.

She followed that character at a distance and observed their behavior, until they, to me, busted the disguise by behavior in a way Ariean knew only one person had. A person who she believed was dead. By knowing people don't always stay dead, confronted them quietly, out of sight.

No rolls were made. Should I have made them roll a disguise roll, when my character's suspition wasn't even about disguise to begin with?



On similar note, what if your character has a valid reason to believe it's "Person X", possibly wearing a disguise, not a random person hiding their identity. What do we roll then? Many of the adventurers, don't really care about random people doing weird things. Adventurers are weird and do weird things to begin with. If I'm used to seeing people with dragon wings, wearing black, and talking to the ashes if their dead wife, that they carry in a box, i wouldn't even bat an eye at someone wearing a clown mask, or even if I suspected them of actually wearing a disguise. I wouldn't care about a random person doing any of it - it's just another day in GG.


But I would care if there's something recognizable about them. That's when the rules should get in. Because I don't care about figuring out if someone random is in disguise. I'm just an adventurer minding their own business. But when there's someone in particular, I want to know they are who I might suspect they are, and trying to get to hide it. That would be the only reasonn for me to bother someone for disguise checks. And it wouldn't surprise me if it was the same way for other players.

[Southpaw]

To DM Munroe:

I’d like to check my own understanding on this. If I’m interpreting correctly, there are two basic parts of a disguise. One is the illusion that you are, in the negative, not yourself. The second is the illusion that you are, in the positive, someone or something else. To illustrate, this would mean that if my character polymorphed into a pixie in order to look harmless and spy on someone in the woods, she could possibly act in a way that isn’t entirely pixie-like (busts the positive), but not in a way that identifies her personally as the exact individual in disguise (doesn’t bust the negative). If I am interpreting right, this could also apply to a person who changed their clothes to hang around in town while wanted (“that guy in the airtight armor seems odd in a creepy way, I might not want to trust him in any way”), but not give away which of the millions of potential creepers in Cormyr he might be. Is this an interpretation that you see as potentially valid, at least in some circumstances? Would you say the threshold for, “I don’t know who it is, but I don’t think they’re as they seem” may be lower than the threshold for individual identification? And how exactly would all that relate to the idea of a disguise being “busted” as described in the rules?

[sightblinder]

How about if they succeed in recognizing that someone is disguised, then another roll is made to see if they can recognize the person behind the disguise?

[Munroe]

Re-posting the Disguise Rules again as I'm referencing them directly within my reply.

Dec 8, 2018 21:44:44 GMT -5 DM Hawk said:

FRC Disguise Rules

Disguised characters have an opportunity to contribute to the intrigue and roleplay of FRC. To help keep Character Disguise encounters fun and fair for everyone on FRC the following rules apply.



1. Disguise Criteria must be met - It's always a good idea to notify the DM channel when wearing a disguise. For a character to be disguised the following must be done at a minimum:

- Cover one's head and face with a hood, helmet, mask, or utilize an Illusion item.

- Wear clothing or armor not commonly worn when the character is not disguised. Don't just dye your armor a different color.

- Avoid speaking or behaving with the character's natural mannerisms.

- Avoid brandishing signature weapon or item by the character.



2. Disguises meeting Criteria should be accepted - If the above criteria are met, the character is considered in disguise. A disguise is considered to be successful unless there is a reason for skepticism.



3. A Disguise Check is required when skepticism is valid - A character who has cause to suspect a disguise is in place may ask for a Disguise Check Roll. Please ask for this roll in private Tells whenever possible but make the rolls public to be seen. It is always a good idea to notify the DM channel when challenging a disguise. Examples where a disguised character may cause others to doubt the disguise include but aren't limited to:

- Speaking

- Behaving as they would when not in disguise, including standing in the same place, having the same posture, etc.

- Behaving abnormally, calling attention to oneself.

- Associating with or aiding characters known to associate with the Disguised Character when not in disguise.

- Verbally or physically acting against those who would be an enemy of the character in the open.

- Casting Spells, Using Magic Items, Using Special abilities or feats known to be used by the disguised character.



4. Disguises can be automatically busted - A disguise is automatically busted when:

- Head covering or Illusion item is removed.

- Clothing or Armor distinctive to the character is worn.

- Speaking in normal voice, accent, or mannerisms.

- Disguised Character admits his identity.

- Disguised Character exhibits knowledge having limited in circulation but which the character would know.

- Brandishing a signature weapon or item.



5. Disguise Checks - The following guidelines will determine the outcome of a Disguise Check when required:

- Disguised Characters normally roll Bluff. Those having Perform may substitute this skill. Clerics with the Trickery Domain may use the Persuade Skill.

- Skeptical Characters challenging the disguise may roll Spot if they are seeing something to give doubt or Listen if they are hearing something to give doubt.

- If the disguise roll is higher or ties the challenging roll, the Disguise is upheld. If the challenging roll is higher than the disguise roll, the disguise is busted.



Please ask a DM if there are any questions about FRC Disguise Rules or share your question in the DM Q&A section here:

frc.proboards.com/board/27/dm-answers

Remember to use common sense and keep the spirit of FRC in mind when interacting with fellow players. The Golden Rule of FRC is to have fun but not at the expense of others.



Thank you,
The FRC Staff

---

Sept 9, 2020 6:54:51 GMT -5 mandene said:

My follow up question is,

At what point do we recognize the disguised person as the person they are under the disguise?

When a disguise is busted by the disguisee behaving as person X, should lead to my character recognizing that they are disguised person X, not just random someone in disguise.


This is the way I roleplayed few months ago, with Ariean seeing someone bebaving suspiciously. OOC I knew who they were by the floating name, but IC she had no way of knowing or even fully suspecting a disguise.

She followed that character at a distance and observed their behavior, until they, to me, busted the disguise by behavior in a way Ariean knew only one person had. A person who she believed was dead. By knowing people don't always stay dead, confronted them quietly, out of sight.

No rolls were made. Should I have made them roll a disguise roll, when my character's suspition wasn't even about disguise to begin with?



On similar note, what if your character has a valid reason to believe it's "Person X", possibly wearing a disguise, not a random person hiding their identity. What do we roll then? Many of the adventurers, don't really care about random people doing weird things. Adventurers are weird and do weird things to begin with. If I'm used to seeing people with dragon wings, wearing black, and talking to the ashes if their dead wife, that they carry in a box, i wouldn't even bat an eye at someone wearing a clown mask, or even if I suspected them of actually wearing a disguise. I wouldn't care about a random person doing any of it - it's just another day in GG.


But I would care if there's something recognizable about them. That's when the rules should get in. Because I don't care about figuring out if someone random is in disguise. I'm just an adventurer minding their own business. But when there's someone in particular, I want to know they are who I might suspect they are, and trying to get to hide it. That would be the only reasonn for me to bother someone for disguise checks. And it wouldn't surprise me if it was the same way for other players.

This second scenario is covered in the disguise rules. Notably, item three on the list of the disguise rules.  Behaving like a certain person, including associations, is grounds for a check.  If your character's suspicion is that they're a specific person, then that's what the opposed check should be used to determine. 

However, if it's obvious to be a specific person due to their behavior, a check may not be required, as per item number 4.  It sounds like that's the case in the first example you give.  Your character was suspicious.  However, instead of making a check to see through the disguise, you elected to rely on further observation to see what was up with the suspicious character.  It was then this "further observation" that led to the character presenting themselves more obviously. 

---

Sept 9, 2020 7:00:03 GMT -5 Southpaw said:

To DM Muncie:

I’d like to check my own understanding on this. If I’m interpreting correctly, there are two basic parts of a disguise. One is the illusion that you are, in the negative, not yourself. The second is the illusion that you are, in the positive, someone or something else. To illustrate, this would mean that if my character polymorphed into a pixie in order to look harmless and spy on someone in the woods, she could possibly act in a way that isn’t entirely pixie-like (busts the positive), but not in a way that identifies her personally as the exact individual in disguise (doesn’t bust the negative). If I am interpreting right, this could also apply to a person who changed their clothes to hang around in town while wanted (“that guy in the airtight armor seems odd in a creepy way, I might not want to trust him in any way”), but not give away which of the millions of potential creepers in Cormyr he might be. Is this an interpretation that you see as potentially valid, at least in some circumstances? Would you say the threshold for, “I don’t know who it is, but I don’t think they’re as they seem” may be lower than the threshold for individual identification? And how exactly would all that relate to the idea of a disguise being “busted” as described in the rules?

Right.  However, for magical effects, such as polymorph and shapechange, a trueseeing spell or effect can reveal the character's true form with no skill check required.  Otherwise, a check would reveal that the pixie or mundane disguise is a person disguised, but isn't going to reveal who that person is.  (Of course if the pixie is acting like someone in particular, then that could be a give-away.)

I would say this is a valid interpretation.  The threshold for "I think that guy is suspicious, possibly in disguise" is definitely lower than "I think that guy is So-and-so in disguise." However, this does not affect the DCs of the opposed roll.  Instead, it affects the result of the roll. The easier suspicion to reach doesn't necessarily return the same information since you're checking a different suspicion. Generally, the more specific your suspicion, and the more specific your description of what the roll represents, the better the successful roll will represent what you were rolling for. Of course if your suspicion is too specific without good reason, someone might cry foul. 

---

Sept 9, 2020 8:11:31 GMT -5 sightblinder said:

How about if they succeed in recognizing that someone is disguised, then another roll is made to see if they can recognize the person behind the disguise?

A second roll isn't always necessary if you suspect someone specific. Your check should reflect you degree of suspicion on the first roll. If you suspect a disguised character is So-and-So, then you're rolling to determine if the disguised character is So-and-so. However, if you just thought the disguised character was a disguised character, and your check revealed that much, then there might be reason to suspect that disguised character is So-and-so at that point, thereby calling for a second check, or a second check might be valid as you try to discern characteristics of the character in the busted disguise to identify them.

This is how I would run them as-written. However, DM Hawk wrote the disguise rules; he may have had simpler solutions in mind.

---

Sept 9, 2020 5:47:16 GMT -5 StabbingNirvana said:

Sorry, I'm not understanding. So the disguise roll isn't to uphold the authenticity, delivery, and validity of the disguise? Its to determine whether you think the person is disguised or not? Is this what a failed for the disguised/success for the challenger situation should look like?

Steve, Anthony's arch nemesis: Hanging out across the street from the Corner Store twiddling his thumbs.
Anthony, dressed in a Freddy Krueger Mask not on Halloween: Walks up to the Corner Store, starts leaning on the wall.
Steve: Looks at Anthony, who is dressed in a Freddy Krueger Mask while not on Halloween. Has no reason to be suspicious of Anthony who is visibly in a mask of Freddy Krueger.
Anthony's friends show up. They started chatting with eachother in hushed tones, not to be heard by Steve. They do a handshake commonly known to be done between Anthony and his pals.
Steve requests a Disguise Check on the sole suspicion of the handshake because he must believe that Anthony is indeed well intentioned while wearing a Freddy Krueger mask on a day that isn't Halloween.
Steve, only after winning the disguise roll, begins to suspect that Anthony is not the Freddy Krueger he's making himself out to be.

Bad humor aside, here's another example replacing the Freddy Krueger mask with a veiled hood.

Steve, Anthony's arch nemesis: Hanging out across the street from the Corner Store twiddling his thumbs.
Anthony, dressed in a veiled hood: Walks up to the Corner Store, starts leaning on the wall.
Steve: Looks at Anthony, who is dressed in veiled hood. Has no reason to be suspicious of Anthony who is visibly dressed in a veiled hood.
Anthony's friends show up. They started chatting with eachother in hushed tones, not to be heard by Steve. They do a handshake commonly known to be done between Anthony and his pals.
Steve requests a Disguise Check on the sole suspicion of the handshake because he must believe that Anthony is indeed well intentioned while wearing a veiled hood.
Steve, only after winning the disguise roll, begins to suspect that Anthony is wearing a veiled hood.

Example 1: Anthony is obviously disguising his identity if he's dressed as Freddy (not just the mask, but also the striped shirt). It's a terrible and obvious disguise. No check required to identify a disguise in this scenario. Anthony's friend shows up and they do a routine Anthony commonly does with his friend. At this point a check MIGHT be required, depending on how common the routine is that Anthony is doing. This check is to identify Anthony as himself. If it's specific enough that only Anthony would do it, then Anthony is outing himself and no check is required to identify him at that point.

Example 2: Anthony is not obviously disguising his identity. Veiled hoods are common enough that this alone does not constitute a disguise by itself. In fact, if all he's wearing is a veiled hood and is otherwise dressed as normal, this does not count as a disguise and no check is required. A hood/helmet/mask is only one aspect of a valid disguise. All other requirements of Part 1 of the Disguise rules also have to be met. If they aren't met, he can just be identified because his disguise efforts were too lazy. He might be able to walk by guards on the street with that hood, but anyone that knows him can tell its him by the rest of his attire and/or mannerisms. Assuming he is fully disguised (not just a veiled hood), and his friend shows up, then they do a routine Anthony commonly does with his friend, at this point, again, a check MIGHT be required, depending on how common the routine is that Anthony is doing. This check is to identify Anthony as himself. If it's specific enough that only Anthony would do it, then Anthony is outing himself and no check is required to identify him at that point.

[StabbingNirvana]

So the Disguise Check ( Bluff or Perform or Persuade VS Spot or Listen) is specific in that it results in identification, is that correct?

If a Disguise Check is asked of someone that is wearing eight masks and outfit combos all layered up on one another and worn at the same time, is a single Disguise Check required or do multiple Disguise checks need to be made, eight in this case?