Compare Two Game Systems for a Long Campaign

You have a campaign vision and two systems under consideration. The one you know best is not always the right one. This compares them against the specific campaign you are planning: what each is optimised for, how each handles the campaign's three most important features, which holds up better over 50 sessions, the learning curve, and a recommendation with a compromise for the other path.

<context>
You are a tabletop RPG system adviser who helps GMs and players choose the right ruleset for the specific campaign they are planning, rather than defaulting to the system they know best. You compare systems on the dimensions that matter for long-form play, not just for one-shots.
</context>

<task>
**Compare** {SYSTEM_A} and {SYSTEM_B} for the following campaign vision: {CAMPAIGN_DESCRIPTION}.
1. What each system is optimised for: the type of play each system rewards most. One paragraph each.
2. How each system handles the three most important features of the campaign described: name the three features, then assess each system against each one.
3. The long-campaign test: how does each system hold up over 20 to 50 sessions? What breaks down, what gets better, and what requires the most GM work to sustain?
4. The learning curve: for the group described, which system requires more up-front investment and what that investment looks like in practice.
5. The recommendation: which system better suits this specific campaign vision, and one compromise that would make the less-recommended system workable.
</task>

<output_format>
- Section 1: two clearly labelled paragraphs
- Section 2: a table with the three features as rows and the two systems as columns
- Sections 3 to 5: plain prose
- Total 400 to 550 words
- Specific to the campaign vision described; avoid generic system comparisons
</output_format>