RWS vs original tarot deck: which should you make?

The RWS vs original tarot deck choice comes down to one tradeoff: follow the Rider-Waite-Smith system and readers instantly know your cards, or go fully original and gain total creative freedom at the cost of a steeper learning curve for buyers. Neither is wrong. They just ask different things of you and your audience.

<!-- IMAGE (photo brief): A two-panel side-by-side of the Five of Cups, left panel an RWS-style narrative scene (cloaked figure, three spilled cups, two standing), right panel a Marseille-style layout showing five plain cup symbols arranged geometrically, visually demonstrating the workload and readability tradeoff. -->

RWS is the 1909 deck by Pamela Colman Smith and Arthur Edward Waite, the one most people picture when they think "tarot." Its structure, its scene-per-card imagery, and its symbolism became the default that most modern decks quietly inherit. Going original means keeping the 78-card skeleton but inventing your own visual language, or breaking from the familiar meanings entirely.

What's the real tradeoff in an RWS vs original tarot deck?

Following the RWS system buys you recognition. A reader picks up your Three of Swords and already expects heartbreak, because RWS made three pierced swords the shorthand for it. That shared visual grammar means people can read your deck on day one without cracking the guidebook. It also means your deck slots neatly into a market of buyers who learned on RWS and want decks they can actually use.

The cost is work and constraint. RWS-style pips are 40 full illustrated scenes (more on that below), and leaning on the established imagery limits how far your ideas can wander before the deck stops reading as "your" deck.

Going original flips both. You get to invent everything: the symbolism, the color logic, the way meaning is carried. Nothing anchors you to spilled cups or bent-backed laborers. The tradeoff is that buyers have to learn your system, which raises the bar on your guidebook and narrows your audience to people willing to do that. A gorgeous original deck with no readable through-line is the most common way ambitious first decks stall.

Should your pips be RWS scenes or Marseille-style?

This is the single decision that swings your workload the most, so treat it as its own fork.

In the RWS approach, every pip is a narrative scene. The Five of Cups is a cloaked figure grieving over three spilled cups with two still standing. The Ten of Wands is someone struggling under a bundle of ten staves. That's 40 little story paintings, each composed from scratch, and it's exactly why RWS decks are so easy to read and so slow to finish.

The older Marseille style treats pips like a poker deck. The Five of Cups is just five cups arranged on the card. You design one strong suit symbol and one clean layout, then repeat it Ace through Ten. The courts still get full figures, but those 40 pips collapse into a repeatable pattern.

Fully illustrating your pips roughly triples the illustration load of the whole deck. Plenty of respected decks keep pips minimal on purpose, both for the classic look and for a sane timeline. If you want the instant readability of RWS, illustrated pips are most of what delivers it. If you want that readability without the years, a hybrid works: RWS-style majors and courts, cleaner geometric pips with small cues that hint at meaning. For the full slot-by-slot breakdown, see the guide to the anatomy of a 78-card tarot deck.

RWS vs original tarot deck: a side-by-side comparison

Here's how the two paths stack up on the things that actually affect a maker.

Read the table as a spectrum, not a switch. Most real decks land somewhere in the middle: RWS bones with an original skin. You keep the 78-slot structure and the broad meanings so people can read the deck, and you make every image, palette, and symbol unmistakably yours.

Is it legal to build on the Rider-Waite-Smith system?

Yes. The original 1909 Rider-Waite-Smith deck is in the public domain in the United States, so the imagery and the underlying system are free to reference, redraw, and reinterpret. You are not infringing anything by making a Three of Swords with three swords and a heart, or by following RWS meanings.

What you cannot do is copy someone's later deck, or lift a modern redrawn version, or use trademarked names attached to specific published decks. The 1909 art) is fair game; a 2024 artist's version of it is not. See is the Rider-Waite-Smith deck public domain? for the specifics. This is general information, not legal advice, so confirm anything commercial with a professional.

So "RWS-based" doesn't mean tracing. It means standing on a public foundation and building your own thing on top, which is exactly what most beloved indie decks do.

Which should you choose?

Start from who the deck is for. If you want people to buy it and read with it, lean RWS: keep the recognizable structure and meanings so the deck is usable, then pour your originality into the art and voice. This is the safe, sellable default, and it's how most working indie decks are built.

Go fully original when the concept demands it, when the whole point is a new system, an unusual card count, or a personal cosmology that the RWS frame would flatten. Just know you're taking on a heavier guidebook, a longer buyer learning curve, and a smaller pool of ready buyers. That's a fine trade if novelty is the product.

If you're still mapping out the deck from scratch, the walkthrough on how to make your own tarot deck covers the earlier decisions that feed into this one.

Frequently asked questions

Is an RWS-based deck easier to sell than an original one?

Usually, yes. Most buyers learned tarot on RWS and want a deck they can read immediately, so RWS-based decks fit a larger, less specialized market. Fully original decks tend to sell to collectors who buy for the art and the concept.

Do I have to illustrate all 56 minor cards like RWS?

No. Scene illustrations on the pips are what make RWS so readable, but they roughly triple your workload. Marseille-style pips (arranged suit symbols, no scenes) are a legitimate, classic choice that keeps the minors fast to produce.

Can I mix RWS structure with original art?

Yes, and most indie decks do exactly that. Keep the 78-card skeleton and the broad card meanings so the deck stays readable, then make every image, color choice, and symbol your own. That's the sweet spot between familiarity and freedom.

Is it legal to base my deck on Rider-Waite-Smith?

The original 1909 deck is public domain in the US, so its system and imagery are free to reinterpret. You just can't copy a modern artist's version or use trademarked deck names. Treat commercial questions as ones to confirm with a lawyer.

Will an original deck confuse readers?

It can, if the meanings aren't clear from the art or the guidebook. Original systems put more weight on your guidebook and card cues to teach buyers how to read. Strong, consistent visual logic keeps an original deck usable rather than baffling.

Whichever path you pick, it helps to see the whole 78-slot structure laid out before you commit to a pip style or an original system. Foolmade gives you a deck page with every card slot mapped, so you can plan majors, courts, and pips in one place and watch the deck fill in as you paint. We never generate or touch your art. The choice, and the work, stay yours.