There is already a post related to this meetup but it concerns a discussion which took place after I had left so I will write about the games of Werewolf. Please post your thoughts too and correct any inaccuracies.

Thoughts:

• Most people said that this was very good fun and I suspect those that didn't still really enjoyed it.
  
  
• Each game lasted about 20 minutes.
  
  
• I was late and observed the first game. I remember Ai was given a werewolf card but she didn't realise so the game was played with her as a villager.
  
  
• When Douglas suggested people give reasons for lynching Thomas one that stood out was "he talks too much". This seems to go with Douglas' later observation that the game is all about information, whether that is obtained by careful choice of sheriff/lynching to maximise what is learned next round or by picking up on what people have said, how they have said it, and how much they have said. Personally I played it very much on instinct and watching for tells, letting others do the logical reasoning (!).
  
  
• Jon left after game one. There was some discussion about whether he was coming back. "His body language seemed dismissive like 'nah, I'm not into this'", "Really? I didn't get that impression!", "I disagree with your analysis. Past evidence of Jon leaving suggests he will return", "I think he would have said goodbye if he wasn't coming back. Since he didn't I assume he is returning". I found it interesting how we applied rationality principles to this.
  
  
• Generally the sheriff/lynching discussions would begin with sincere considerations of outcome trees then as soon as anyone said "but that's what you'd say if you were a werewolf!" or "she seemed a little quick to agree with that!" or "he's swallowing a lot while talking!" it switched to accusations and double bluffs.
  
  
• There were quite a few pieces of reasoning relating to proximity to people. e.g. "I'm sure I heard movement next to me 'last night'". My immediate instinct was that this is outside of the rules and unsporting, but obviously that isn't the case with this game!
  
  
• Something I found especially inspired was Alexey (as a werewolf) in game two claiming to be the seer after Thomas (the actual seer) had already told everyone that he himself was. Alexey argued that he had withheld the information to see who would try to pretend to be the seer and then he would know who one of the werewolves was. Most people weren't convinced but it was very entertaining.
  
  
• We decided, on Alexey's suggestion, that a coin toss is acceptable to decide a tied vote. Jonathan remarked that British coins land on heads 53 times out of 100. Does anyone have a link for that?
  
  
• Douglas did a great job giving the game some life with the storytelling style of delivery. I don't know what the proper term for this is, or whether you're traditionally supposed to play werewolves that way (I suspect you are), but it was cool. As was Thomas' replication of it when he was GM.
  
  
• Ramana spent the most time dead and made the point that it's very different watching from the outside compared to playing. He said you can perceive much better what people are trying to do and who is gullible.
  
  
• Douglas explained that for the villagers it is always best to lynch someone because otherwise the next day you'll just be in the exact same position with one less villagers' vote against the same number of werewolves' votes. This seems definitely true, but oddly counter-intuitive given that you're more likely to lynch a villager by mistake, the more of them you have.
  
  
• Between games three and four there was a false start because someone had forgotten they had a werewolf card and then suddenly and noisily realised they were supposed to have their eyes open. Oops!
  
  
• I hadn't played before but was familiar with the concept and had been meaning to try it with friends for a long time. If you're in a similar position, then bump it up your priority list. It's awesome!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post was partly motivated by this comment in the google group:

So, I'd observe that
   "we tried a social meeting, we played werewolf [also called Mafia], it went well/badly etc."
is far more useful data to the community that
   "we failed to call taboo on a contentious term, and thus displayed massive confusion"

From a community building perspective, the former is useful and the latter is not. From an informational perspective, the first is null and the latter is a net negative, in that it looks like it might contain content but does not.