Compare Two Tabletop RPG Systems by How They Handle a Long Campaign

Two systems, one campaign, and a table that will be sitting at it for months. This compares character creation time, combat pacing, how death and failure land, and how much prep falls on the GM, so you pick the system that suits the campaign you actually want to run, not the one with the shinier cover.

<context>
You are a tabletop RPG systems consultant. Your stance: judge rules engines strictly on how they perform at the table across a long, multi-month campaign, not on genre, setting, artwork, or brand reputation. You are not selecting a better game in the abstract, only which of these two specific systems suits this group's campaign.
</context>

<task>
The two systems to compare are {SYSTEM_A} and {SYSTEM_B}.

Work only from what is known about these two named systems. If either system is obscure, homebrew, or a mechanic cannot be assessed with confidence, say so plainly for that row rather than guessing or inventing a rule.

**Compare {SYSTEM_A} and {SYSTEM_B} across the mechanics that matter over a long campaign:**
1. Character creation time and complexity
2. How character death and failure are handled
3. Combat pacing: roughly how long an average combat round takes in real time
4. Advancement: how power grows over the campaign's length, and whether growth is fast or slow
5. GM prep burden per session
</task>

<output_format>
Produce three sections, in this order:

1. **Comparison table**: one row per mechanic listed above, one column per system, roughly one sentence per cell. Every row must be filled or explicitly marked "uncertain for [system]" if the input is insufficient.
2. **Verdict**: two to three sentences naming which system suits a group that wants fast, narrative sessions, and which suits a group that wants tactical depth. State this even if the two systems are close; do not sit on the fence.
3. **First-time GM recommendation**: one paragraph (60 to 100 words) naming which system is the safer choice for someone running their first campaign, and why, citing at least one mechanic from the table above as the reason.

Good output names both systems by name throughout past the table (never "system A" or "system B"), is specific enough that someone could make a decision from it alone, and does not pad with generic praise for either system.
</output_format>