Like a lot of folks I started out with RW, but this was during my nebulous teenage years of grasping confused enthusiasm mixed with the despair of not knowing what to do with anything. After I got a regular magical system practice going, Tarot became an key aspect of meditation, not just reading. The colors and design of RW lent itself well to inner journeys. I was warned off Crowley's Thoth due to complexity, so I went out and bought one anyway. I also got a Cicero deck, which had the titles, etc.
What I liked in BOT and the Circeros' was that the Minors had titles and astrological correspondences on the cards, which helped me with understanding remedial interpretation and helped me expand into other systems of work. The Thelemic aspect of BOT only came to bug me down the line when I started to realize that there was a vast world of occultism beyond what my local bookstores had in stock. The internet was just being born in those days, and cell phones looked like combat radios. Questions as to paradigm differences actually stimulated my natural tendency towards syncretism, but I did not realize until I first joined Yahoo! Groups that these could be so factional. I felt like I was late in a game I had been playing since I was kid, but I think every aspirant to the Art should have at least one knock down drag out discussion with a "purist" on the relationships between the Hebrew alphabet and the Major Arcana.
But, my blah-blahs aside, I am in the RW camp on this for a starter deck, but having a Marseilles might be easier on the senses. No reason you can't compare and take your time. A friend of mine had pointed out to me that she preferred RW because she liked the little allegorical stories that the Minors told, though she could give a fig about the astrological background, or where the deck came from. I also have sentimental reasons having more to do with the artist, Pamela Coleman Smith. Waite gave her the descriptions he wanted but she painted it with her blood. She only got a small pittance in payment, maybe a GD mission pep talk, but never saw a dime or got much credit after and died in poverty. Really, it should be called the
Smith-Waite deck, but at least the publisher slips a little bio on PCM in recognition of her efforts.
Another thing that helped me out was finding Robert Wang's book
Qabalistic Tarot - though it is more geared to the Golden Dawn cluster it does delve into the history behind the images and compares RW, BOT, GD and Marseilles.
I have no set system. The closest I can think of is "chaos magick" but even that feels like applying to much of a belief set onto it.
The occult can be a maze, and the Tarot itself a maze of mirrors. If your goal is to develop your vision, your intuition, then your initial preferences should be your guide. Taking a general approach with Tarot based on visual preferences first seems like a natural step. I've found the problem of identity in the occult (viz. "am I a chaote, witch, CM, LHP or RHP?") gets in the way of cultivating a basic understanding, though this is probably a necessary test of any given path (in the sense of a personal one). Some people just can't "keep it simple" and have to shoot in all directions, like me. But I would say having that "go to" deck in the process of learning, consulting it daily in a comfortable way, finding and questioning the connections within, is a good companion to have.
