D&D Kills Group Cooperation?

I've been thinking for a while about the idea that the 3rd Edition game promotes personal power ascension over group cooperation...a few people I know are of this opinion, and I'm not sure that I agree.
The new edition does have a "video game" feel to me, due to how feats and multicasting are handled, and the power level has definitely been increased to a degree I am unaccustomed to.
BUT I don't see any reason why the new game would inhibit group cooperation. Would it be because of the new multi-classing rules? I can see that, as now there is no need for the "balanced" group; i.e., thief, warrior, mage, cleric. Two or more characters can now cover most of the bases. It can't be the power level because many Supers games have character much more ridiculous, yet I've played in those super-hero games and group cooperation is not destroyed. It can't be the increased player's options for new feats and skills, because GURPS offers a mind-boggling array of new skills and advantages (feats) for characters. I never saw a decline in group cooperation in those games either.

It's been said by some that the game promotes personal character aggrandizement, a sort of arms race of power. But the previous editions all promised increasing levels of power, and all players looked forward to when their characters would some day be "kick ass". So, if you agree with the criticism, how does Third Edition differ in that regard?

First I heard of this. I don't think it does at all, or at least any more than any other RPG. I sure haven't experienced any disharmony in my groups due to the rules.

I depends on the group. You'll find certain people just work better together. I'm not sure the rules really influence how well a group works together, I think it's more up to the DM to put them in group situations and the PCs to realize they are a group and not individuals.

One of the problems we had early one was the group worked too well together, getting through things that should challenge us in a breeze. But that was more of the DM under estimating us as a group, then out superior play.

my group experiances a cirtan degree of anomosity towards this one character for roleplaying reasons, he's a cleric who calls himself Sir Gabrial of Had (I'll let you figure out the pun on that one) and has a cirtan degree of arrogance towards numerous other party members praticularly mine, a Halfling who he views as a child.

I think that if anything 3e's preoccuptaion with balance tends to promote group co-operation, eg Rogues are no longer easily overshadowed by wizards and clerics, their skills remain useful at all levels. I do think that in 3e it's a bit easier for eg 1 multiclassed 12th level PC to complete a scenario designed for 4 6th-level PCs, but a group of equivalent level is still vastly more powerful than any individual. Furthermore, single-classed characters, esp spellcasters, tend to be a lot more powerful than multiclassed at higher levels, which again promotes variation of roles.

We're 13th level and we always help each other. Last night three characters were saved, by other party members, from certain death. Including me. In this party we are mostly single class characters. We've got more magic items than a bag of holding and a portable hole can hold.

In another campaign (8th level) we lie, cheat and steal monetary wealth from each other but we still save each others lives. This is a low-magic campaign with almost all multiclassed characters. We've got two magic weapons +1 to the entire party.

I think D&D is a great game for party cooperation. Perhaps the balance of power ensures this. I mean the fighter doesn't want to cross the wizard for he can slay him and vice versa?

I'm with those who would say that 3e actually promotes cooperation. One example: Rogues are helped immensely by having someone who they can work with to get into flanking positions - never before has a thief's effectiveness been so enhanced by something another PC can do.

The Aid Another options are also big helpers, and of course the Bard class is desinged to be a big "help others" class. For that matter so is the cleric, with all the boosting magic they can cast on team members.

In the last session, a 9th level Rogue/Barbarian boosted by Haste, Improved Invisibility, Bless and Greater Magic Weapon (on his greatsword) have slaughtered AC 34 HP 99 11th level Cleric Lich in 3 rounds. While a Paladin and a Cleric vaporizing his follower undeads (8 Bane Guards and 2 Sword Wraith). FYI, the lich have used Harm on himself in his first AND second round. He had no time to use any attack spells at all....

Ah yes, group cooperation is beautiful and effective.

My lich.........

I think it depends on the players you have. It's one reason why I prefer the players to create a balanced party with preferably good alignment. They are heroes after all.

Unfort, due to player line-up changes in recent months, my current D&D group has changed and now I have an odd party mix.

My prefered party mix is as follows:

2x Warrior types (Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger or Paladin).
1x Sneaky type (Bard or Rogue).
1x Clerical type (Cleric or Druid).
1x Spellcaster type (Sorcercer or Wizard).

Race I think is irrelevant really, to keeping balance.

Gygax has criticized 3e for his perception of it as promoting the individual over the group. I disagree. If anything, 3e seems to stress the need for a balanced party as much as its predecessors. Multiclassing may look like a way to create the true "jack-of-all-trades," but the fact is, it's still a big trade off in power. Maybe the character is more versatile, but he/she is not going to run roughshod over the single classed members of the party. Think about it: your 10th level party goes into, oh, let's say the Temple of Elemental Evil. How worried would you be if the only character with clerical abilities was a 3rd level cleric/3rd level fighter/4th level rogue? Now, I'm sure plenty of people wouldn't be worried, but I sure would. That PC may be versatile, but the lack of experience in any given class could make a big difference in play.