We construct a model of strategic imitation in an arbitrary network of players who interact through an additive game. Assuming a discrete time update, we show a condition under which the resulting difference equations converge to consensus. Two conjectures on general convergence are also discussed. We then consider the case where players not only may choose their strategies, but also affect their local topology. We show that for prisoner's dilemma, the graph structure converges to a set of disconnected cliques and strategic consensus occurs in each clique. Several examples from various matrix games are provided. A variation of the model is then used to create a simple model for the spreading of trends, or information cascades in (e.g., social) networks. We provide theoretical and empirical results on the trend-spreading model.3. Finally, we show how these dynamics can be adapted to model trends in (social) networks and study the qualitative properties of trends theoretically and empirically. This is a significant extension of work [62] in which we present the basic game-theoretic model for weighted imitation and consider its evolution on static graphs, without showing a condition on strategic consensus or studying either topological changes or trends. Consensus in a changing network topology is considered in [12] and is related to this work in so far as we also analyze the case of an agent-controlled changing network topology. A changing topology is also considered in [63], but the authors consider a specific opinion formation game consistent with the DeGroot model rather than a general matrix game.The model considered in this paper is distinct from the unifying model in [1] because:1. the coupling strength in the evolution equation is defined by a game payoff, rather than by an increasing (or non-negative) influence function φ, and 2. the agents' state is the strategy played, rather than a physical location, opinion or velocity.The coupling function we investigate may not be monotonic as a function of any metric on the strategy space over which our dynamics operate. This difference leads to a distinct set of consensus criteria than those given in [1]. As a result, our model cannot be subsumed by the unifying model in [1].