Essentially, the player has two interweaving goals, strengthen his or own position, and make that position more advantageous in terms of scoring.
I've seen this in games where a producer of a product will also try to influence the market throughout, but I'm focused specifically on the endgame value.
An example (Note, for those thinking on an extended hot-topic metaphor, my game is not political.)
Players are citizens vying for leadership on an imaginary/stereotypical/amalgamated Greek island around just before the Peloponnesian war got going. The populace at the beginning cares little about war or rhetoric, representing oversimplified Spartan and Athenian ideals. So what players must do is not only develop their own attributes, but they must convince the populace that said attributes are what they want in a leader. (So while a player goes out hunting boar, operatives for that same player are convincing the populace that hunters are favored by the gods, and no rhetorician ever talked an animal into being dinner.)
Thanks.
Thank you, Frank for telling me what I needed to hear, beyond the initial question.
While this is a highly thematic game (as I said, very unlike the example), you've made me realize that I need to get over my fear of premature balancing (convenient since my theme and story are thought out before the mechanics start to form) and start thinking about game theory and math models (learning more about both). So when things start blowing up in playtesting, I have a better idea why or at least where to look.