I think players have a responsibility to fit their characters to the rest of the group, both in terms of power level and persona. D&D is a group activity; if one player keeps clashing with the rest of the group, it's generally a problem. That can take the form of a character who is far less effective than everyone else and becomes a drag on the party; it can be a character who is far more effective and hogs the spotlight; or it can be a character whose personality leads to conflict within the party.
Of those problems, though, I find that the poorly built character is by far the easiest to deal with. Such characters don't take away from anyone else's glory and they don't start intra-party fights, they just suck up some resources; which is a mechanical issue easily addressed by the DM. As long as the player of that character recognizes that his failure to perform on the level of the other characters is a result of his own decisions and not someone else's responsibility to rectify, it's usually not a big deal.
And the important thing is relative power levels (that is, compared to the other PCs), not absolute. If you want to play a samurai, and the rest of the party consists of a ninja, a warlock, and a monk? Go for it, you'll fit right in. If you want to play a samurai in a party with a Ruby Knight Vindicator, a CoDzilla cleric, and a Batman wizard, you might want to reconsider your build... although that's not nearly as much of a problem as somebody who wants to play a Batman wizard in the ninja/warlock/monk party.