This kind of thinking is inevitable, and meta-gaming any system is not really a problem if the group as a whole is in accord. If the players (in this case as opposed to the narrator) have an equal or greater responsibility in a particular game to drive the core narrative structure then not only is this kind of thinking likely but probably required.
In a game where the GM is responsible for the story structure then it could be a potential negative, but the Narrator in that more standard style of game would be able to rule that any specific contest was not important to the overall structure and not count allow it to sway the pass fail cycle.
The rule book is firmly in the second camp here, but I can easily imagine a functional game where such meta-gaming worked.
Jamie
>
> As a player, there are always some contests you are more willing to lose than others. Given the difficulty cycle, if you've been on a winning streak and are coming up to one of those ones that you really don't want to lose, it would seem natural to engineer some less critical contests along the way. ...