What about the practice of playing essentially the same character in campaign after campaign (not concurrently and hopefully with different groups of people, maybe with a decent gap in time between playing them and playing them again)?  likely mostly the same or similar on: race, class,  subclass, perhaps with minor  tweaks and refinements (improvements over time)  to 1st draft of backstory personality traits, feats, spell selection, etc.  And  then with added flexibility about the final backstory, in order to make the character fit with the campaign and the rest of the party. 

I have a couple of characters that I really like to play, is that bad or wrong or somehow unfair or disingenuous to GM's and other players?  I guess it's a little lazy about not making a new creation and perhaps not being as open to new experiences.  Maybe it's a bit like living in the past and wanting to recreate past fun experineces, instead of creating new ones.  

One thing I don't like to play characters that I'm just not that into.  I think I'm worried that I don't have it in me to create  that many really good characters that I would really enjoy playing.  

I admit that I'd really like to have a whole string of characters that I like that much that I might rotate in and out over the years, revisiting them and refining their builds and personalities over time.  

I guess one thing:  there are subclasses that I have enjoyed playing and it would feel somehow disloyal of me to make a new character (like a different name, race, personality) for the subclass of a beloved character that I have previously played of that subclass.  I think for me this is likely unique to subclasses. (and yeah, I get that my characters aren't really so any feelings of loyalty are misplaced - it still might be something that I would feel disinclned to do).  Also, even though there are a lot of subclasses to choose from, it seems like I'm onlly attracted to a relatively few. 

One more thing:  it bugs  me when I have a character that I overall really like, but then I make some choice in the built or in  roleplaying the personality that I regreat and I want a chance at a do-over on making that character exactly the way I want them to be. 

Is this just a stage that I am in right now, and something that I will get over wanting?  Will cominig up with characters that I really like get easier with time?  Right now it feels harder.  

What about 'fessing up about having played a version of the character before?  I assume you pretty much have to do that, right? 

I don’t think there’s a wrong way to make characters. If you enjoy having your characters be variants of previous characters, I don’t see anything wrong with that. They will end up with different stories as the campaign progresses, anyway. (Some composers, like Bach and Handel, frequently recycled pieces of music, turning an oboe concerto into a harpsichord concerto into an operatic overture or interlude.)

Play what appeals to you. If you only really enjoy Dwarf Paladins...then go ahead, play another one.

There are two exceptions to that, though, and they apply mostly if you play in the same group repeatedly.

1. Don't hog a character. If you always play a Paladin but someone else wants to try it, be reasonable. Consider letting them have a go.

2. Speaking as a DM, don't have the whole party do it. It's boring when I'm DMing a party and everyone is playing the same character for the 200th session in a row. I don't have an issue with an individual doing it...but please, not everyone. Let there be come variety in novelty in the group. Even if it's just that the Cleric becomes a Warlock or something.

I have a married couple and four singles who all do exactly that -- not only within my game, but across all of the other Dm's games as well.

I require a character be created for my game -- I don't accept characters from a different DM's game -- but that's mostly because they have to be part of the world, which is a different world.  I have different classes, different races, different cultures -- but really, generally speaking one can create a character that is very close to what they are playing in a different campaign, and I'm cool with just saying "sure, you can move across stats as long as they meet the house rules" and all that.

It is, essentially, the same character, just if they were born and grew upon this different world. And I have no issues with that myself.

I kinda like it, because I can more or less plan out what they will be like if they are going to be in my game, lol. It is almost like ahve a pregen that I didn't have to create, lol.

Most of them are playing the same character in several games at the same time, and they've been doing it for years. I don't know if they feel as stuck -- to them, that's what they have fun doing (especially the Fighter and Rogue duo), and I know they've all done other things before.

Now, part of the reason I don't mind is this: My game is different from the other DM's games. Different story, different play style, different game world, and so forth. Over time, that character is going to change and grow in a different way than they would in a different game -- essentially becoming a different character.

Isn't that along the lines of reincarnation? The same soul moving from body to body after death?

I'm guilty of creating the same type of character for a few campaigns. It was because I wanted a self reliant PC. I played at a time when Special Snowflakes, Edgelords, and Emo-kings were common. It was no surprise when they ran off on their own or tried to kill off the party to steal their stuff. 

People like to play things they are comfortable with. I don't have a problem with that unless like AEDorsay said they all do it all the time. I usually create characters that are similar to try some theory or game style then move on to the next thing.

The only “wrong” way to play D&D is if you’re ruining the game for other people.

The way I see it, there are two different primary approaches people take to create a character for a game; there are countless variations between them.

1. Character First. This is OP. "I have a character idea I'm in love with and want to find a game for it."
2. Setting First. As you might imagine, the opposite of Character First. "I want to understand the setting and build a character that's appropriate for it."

As a DM I ask my players to focus on creating characters that fit my setting. I don't care if it's a character concept they've played in the past, just that it's a character that makes sense in the campaign space. I tend to get more excited about characters from the Setting First perspective, but can be easily sold on a Character First approach that fits the setting quite well.

Over the years I've had multiple friends who love to cycle a few core character concepts and do a great job of fitting them into the setting of the day.

In the few times someone has an idea that really doesn't fit (like a snow barbarian in a desert culture) I just call attention to that and ask the player if they can find anything else that is fun for them in my setting. Sometimes there isn't and that's OK and good to find out in advance.

I also tend to limit class and species options based on culture in my settings, which can be a challenge for Character First players.

As others have said, there’s no wrong answer here, unless you are bumping up against other people’s fun. You should play what makes you happy.

Personally, I have a type of character I default to playing. Because of this, I usually make an effort to do something different. Trying something I don’t think I’ll like every now and then. Usually, I find them more fun than I expected. A lot of times, I do this by basically choosing last when the group is building a party. I see what other people are doing, and fill in any gaps the group might have. Most of the time, the result is me taking on a role I might not normally, and therefore playing a character I probably wouldn’t play.

And one of the advantages of 5e is there are multiple ways to fill any role. If the party needs a healer, sure a life cleric will be outstanding, but a druid can do, or a bard, or a celestial warlock, or a number of others. So if you are looking to try something else, consider the role you play in the party, and maybe look at a different way to fill that role.

This is a common thing and not something you should worry about. However, it's always good to check in with your group to avoid the potential issues brought up here.

Quote from Xalthu >>

As others have said, there’s no wrong answer here, unless you are bumping up against other people’s fun. You should play what makes you happy.

Personally, I have a type of character I default to playing. Because of this, I usually make an effort to do something different. Trying something I don’t think I’ll like every now and then. Usually, I find them more fun than I expected. A lot of times, I do this by basically choosing last when the group is building a party. I see what other people are doing, and fill in any gaps the group might have. Most of the time, the result is me taking on a role I might not normally, and therefore playing a character I probably wouldn’t play.

And one of the advantages of 5e is there are multiple ways to fill any role. If the party needs a healer, sure a life cleric will be outstanding, but a druid can do, or a bard, or a celestial warlock, or a number of others. So if you are looking to try something else, consider the role you play in the party, and maybe look at a different way to fill that role.

 
I also try to push myself to play things I might not normally gravitate towards. I do it by rolling stats first in order, then choosing a class best suited to those stats and then a species that complements, often a species that fills in any likely gaps as opposed to going for optimization. The rest (background, etc.) just sorta falls into place from there. I have created some very interesting, and memorable characters that way.

Thank you!  What you all said make me feel better about having the option to recyle some or all.  I found this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkC1z66QqaU it makes me feel a bit better too.  

I think I needed to at least give myself permission to play a character again that I had played before in a different campaign.  Having that actually led me to write a new backstory for a new charcter a new (for me) subclass.  The character has a fair amount in common with other character I have created and played and I think that's okay, and even preferable, because I kinda know what I like and what's fun for me and what kind of character I can roleplay.  Eventirually I hope to branch out to roleplaying characters that are more varied, but I might not be there yet.

One think that I forgot about when I posted my original quesion is that I like test drive my characters in a one shot or two to get some of the kinks worked out and do some fine-tuning on them, before putting them into a campaign that is going to be long-term and meaningful to me. I've never felt badly about doing that. 

I do this quite often and for multiple reasons. 

First I like playing the race and class, second I play with lots of new players and few want to play a Cleric which I really enjoy. I do try new subclasses, feats... from game to game and new names and backstories though I have straight recycled an old characters too.

I also have several characters of different classes and races for both back up and new games depending on the party and game. I like variety but I do enjoy working my way through a class too.