Literal vs. figurative decks
Do your decks have a tendency to show and/or describe in a LITERAL way through imagery or keywords, OR do your decks tend to reveal information in a figurative or metaphorical way?
In my experience, the original RWS can communicate in both ways, and leans a little more towards figurative or archetypal imagery. This is probably because of the older, medieval imagery and the pretty esoteric scenes in some cards being more or less impossible for the average person to "literally" experience, i.e. Judgment.
I would think that if a deck is Marseilles-based or pipish, that this theory of mine probably would not apply. But if you can provide an example of a pip deck communicating through LITERAL imagery, do say so!
But for a few other examples I've encountered in my time reading:
Urban Tarot by Robin Scott always is LITERAL. (The Urban Tarot is a hybrid of RWS and Thoth but retains full illustrations across all 78 cards.) The imagery will be reflected in my daily life if I pulled it as a daily card. If I'm reading on a past event, it shows what actually happened. Even the Thoth keywords will show up in a LITERAL way.
Little Sister Tarot by Ginny Thonson (a RWS clone) is very similar to the original RWS, but tends to describe in a LITERAL way through imagery.
Wild Unknown by Kim Krans (RWS & Thoth hybrid, quite pipish) is reads as LITERAL for me despite featuring only animals and no modern human scenerios. I may have to search a little harder, but it seems to communicate in a way that is usually more LITERAL than figurative.
Game of Thrones tarot (RWS clone) reads FIGURATIVELY. It does not communicate directly, but tends to be far more loose and uses the cards to convey information in more archetypal or metaphoric way. It does not get literal. Reading between the lines is necessary for this one.