I'll be honest: I've done it, and I'll do it again. I have a flurry of my own reasons for it, but I think the main contention comes down to this...
PCO.Spvnky:
I don't understand how a gm can expect you to put in such a massive amount of work for a concept only to drop the game (the majority of the time) when life has become a little inconvenient.
Though it's a little more than just this.
Disclaimer: I am only speaking from my own experiences here, not saying this is universal.
First off, Spvnky has a valid point. Why should a player
always be expected to create a new character for a game? Heaven knows Tolkien didn't do that (Gandalf is a main player in both The Hobbit
and Lord of the Rings? Puh-lease), and nor did Nintendo when they reused Mario for everything under the sun (Maybe this time he can... Jetski? Have we had him do that yet?). Characters get reused
everywhere and
all the time, yet somehow we, as a community, have found the practice distasteful when going from game to game. Where did it come from?
Well, part of it is that there are certain expectations a player might have when they bring a character they previously used to the table. They might have a huge backstory plotted out and NPCs they want to include and a host of other things and, well, that can be a problem is those things don't mesh well with the GM's story. Where exactly did this princess come from if there's no such thing as princesses in the world? And that's a fair thing to ask, but it's also something a GM can work with, or they can say no. And
both are okay, but it shouldn't be a no just because someone pulled their character from a previous game. What if it does work out to have a princess from a neighboring country with her three bumbling bodyguards in the story, and if you hadn't known she was from a previous game? That's the litmus test I always use: What if no one knew the character was from another game? If they work, why not? If they don't, then it's because the character doesn't fit, not because of some prejudice.
Part of it is also that players bringing leftovers to the table can make a GM feel like the player doesn't care as much about their game. That's more of an ego thing, more often than not, but it's also at least somewhat valid. Obviously, at some point, you cared enough to make an entirely new character for some game or story, so why not theirs? What was so special about this other story that isn't special about the other one? And, again, those are fair questions to ask, but realizing that some people have passions for their character instead of your story isn't a bad thing. They want to play that character, and that will bring them back each day (or week, or whatever) just as well as your gripping storyline. And, who knows, maybe that storyline will be the one that finalizes the character in that person's mind, or maybe not. Either way, it's okay so long as they show up and play well, no?
And part of it, truly, is because there's an obsession with being original. Original Characters (OCs) are a passion for some people. Original storylines, or original takes on them, are why we're all here, isn't it? No one wants to just play through all of the exact moments in the Harry Potter series exactly as they happened with no deviations or extra details. That would just be a very long way of rewriting the book in screenplay format, and people have already done that (but even they took liberties!). So, yes, wanting original content for your original story in what may or may not be an original world is great and all, but keep in mind that you didn't (in most cases) develop the system or the setting, and that it's probably all been done in some way, shape, or form before.
I'll admit it: I may be a little sore about this subject. I've been rejected from a few games for bringing in an old character, and I've been met with a healthy amount of skepticism about my commitment to a game just because I was upfront about reusing something. Heck, I've even been on the other side of the argument at times, arguing why an old character shouldn't be used for something, or poking fun at people who just make the same character
over and over. In the end though, reusing characters is something that a person can choose to do, and it's not any more or less valid than creating a new character every single time. It's not always about laziness, or apathy, or a lack of originality. Reusing character can be about eagerness, passion, and a desire to finally see the story they feel a character deserves.
And that brings us all the way back to Spvnky's point, which I think boils down (or, rather, up) to this:
If you want someone to be excited for your game, to put effort into it, to dedicate themselves to the story and the world and the party and whatever else, you need to understand that you have to
earn that. And you don't earn it by simply making a game and putting up an LFP. You earn it by running games where that passion they might have isn't dashed against the rocks a month or two later. You earn it by realizing that even if you've run 100 successful games before, if you haven't run one for that player then you still haven't earned it with them quite yet. You earn it by rewarding players for wanting to join your game, not punishing them for being cautious with their limited time and creative energy. Because until you're known for being the GM that lets characters live, you're just another faceless GM that might throw away that original character on a whim.
But, and just to be 100% clear, I won't touch (and won't accept) official canon characters in any game I'm in, player or GM. Because, you know, we all have our biases. ;)