I have noticed this a lot when reading and critiquing fantasy novels. It goes like this: I pick up a fantasy novel and it starts out at a point where there's a lot of action. The problem is that I have no idea what's going on and ultimately, it's confusing. So, I talk to the author and I say, "Okay, why did you start the story here?" And the answer I usually get was, "Well, I originally started with them discussing the plan in the tavern (or whatever) and everyone said it was boring, so I took that part out." How do I approach this situation? It might be just me, but I don't believe the solution to a boring opening chapter of people talking is to just cut it out. So, what should I suggest? I don't want to come off as being like, "I know and the five other people who read your story don't know what they're talking about."
There's not necessarily a contradiction here. If five readers all agreed that the opening tavern (or whatever) scene was boring, then in all likelihood, it probably was boring. The problem then becomes how to fix it, and, as you said, simply lopping it off can make things unclear. So, I'd say the best approach is to emphasize that the group diagnosed the original problem correctly, but that the new beginning still needs work. They should review that original tavern scene and identify the necessary information in it, then figure out how to communicate it to the reader more effectively. That could mean a brief opening paragraph, a revised, shorter tavern scene, a few well-placed additions to the new opening scene, or something completely different.
If the opening scene has little action, it can be used for other purposes: Introducing the characters so that the reader gets a feeling for their different personalities and approaches, informing the reader about the stakes, showing some worldbuilding etc. In the tavern example that would mean we could see how the characters disagree about the risks and benefits of several parts of the plan, how they have different ideas how to achieve certain things; we could hear about their motivations why they need to do this, and we could see glimpses of other creatures, races, factions, etc. that also exist in this world. We might even be informed about political ongoings, because in a tavern, people like to talk.
You can start with a tavern or an action scene; you just have to construct it correctly. The main issue with the tavern scene is usually it is a queue for an info dump in the form of "maid and butler" conversations where two or more characters tell the entire backstory in the form of conversations. It is tedious to read and usually ends in most readers putting the book down by page one. The issue with the action scene is the action has to have a purpose other than the action. For example: a duel for the honor of a lady can be a brief action scene in the opening of a story to draw a reader in. But the man who dies was the crown prince and the kingdom is thrown into civil war over the succession. Or a lawless gunslinger who guns down an innocent man as a way of starting the story showing the evil character of the outlaw. But I agree with you, there are a few authors who throw a bunch of action in that has nothing to do with the main plot of the book and it is just as off-putting as a tavern info-dump scene. The opening paragraph of The Black Arrow by Robert Louis Stevenson: On a certain afternoon, in the late springtime, the bell upon Tunstall Moat House was heard ringing at an unaccustomed hour. Far and near, in the forest and in the fields along the river, people began to desert their labours and hurry towards the sound; and in Tunstall hamlet a group of poor country-folk stood wondering at the summons. I particularly like this opening because it is simple, but by the end of the paragraph, you want to keep reading to see what, like the country-folk hurrying to the sound, was the cause for the summons. Sometimes, in my opinion, less is more. But you want to incorporate a hook that makes a reader want to continue on with the story.
So it's kinda like coming into an intense D&D campaign, tha tis starting off with a battle? Roll the dice. I've read plenty of action packed books, that didn't start off with combat typically. One, the MC is on the run from the law, but it makes sense considering the guy is an exotic drug dealer/smuggler of prohibited goods. Later its a race with a shady organization to find and smuggle an exotic space ship. Bit gratuitous to start off a story with people shooting/slashing at each other in the first page of the story. Then again who starts off with sitting around drinking and cooking up a plan? Why can't they just be in the tavern chilling out after a battle, and then get pulled into another one. That would be less boring, and it would give us some idea of the characters the reader is going to be following around for the rest of the story. If there are no established stakes, then why do we care about what happens to the the characters in the first five minutes. We don't know them, and therefore don't matter as much as at lest setting them up and giving them some kind of persona. Otherwise they are just faceless people on one side of a faceless pointless fight.
Well, the situation shown can have stakes inherent into it, or it can be interesting all on its own. For instance, Gods of Wood and Stone starts with one of the main characters giving his induction speech for the MLB Hall of Fame, and he gets in a fist fight on stage with some crazed man wielding a sledge hammer. Do we know the stakes? Not yet. Is it interesting and compelling? Definitely. I think sometimes stakes take time to be developed properly because they are often intimate and complex (others are more simple: win the day or aliens will wipe out humanity). So you have to offer compelling content before stakes are fully developed. I think to directly answer your possibly rhetorical question, the reason we care before we understand the stakes is the character is relatable and likable, and there is either immediate danger to them (physically or psychologically) or trouble brewing on the horizon.
There are a few ways to approach it in my opinion. You can meld action and talking (not necessarily a battle or fight either, but use the action to inform the reader of the protagonist's personality or their background. For example, while being chased over some backyards, the protagonist displays he is good at parkour, due to his background as a thief in the slums where he/she grew up as a kid clambering over the mish-mash of buildings - forced into doing so by the gangs. Then that can get mentioned in description and the dialogue can reflect that in the action as well. "If you're this good at escaping when we set our plan in motion, we'll probably do alright!" Relevancy like that is one of the keys to stop it being boring. Characterization - learning about the character through the action, and not just action for action's sake. Even working it into the plot, maybe saying that they were scouting out somewhere when they needed to escape (as example) and when clear, they head to the pub where they are about to go over their plan. That way you get a bit of both. Another, if you don't want to go down the action route at all - is intrigue. Be extremely tight-fisted with the information. Omit lots of it. These guys are planning... but for what? Are they the good guys? The bad guys? Lay questions all over it that the reader wants answers to. Show one character that clearly mistrusts another... but why? (again, as example) Have the plan or the dialogue be interrupted JUST at the moment of a good explanation, etc. This can be good on its own but its better melded with the next one... Hit the reader with the personality of the characters, usually the strongest personality, and make it stand out - straight off the bat. The one with the most humour will often grab the reader first. Readers love something that will make them smile or chuckle. A funny dwarf with a lewd sense of humour is something I've used myself. There's a good saying I found somewhere - People will remember good characters over a good plot every day of the week. Make the characters interesting and strong enough and when you slap the reader around the face with them the reader will want to follow them onwards. Hit them around the head with your best character immediately. After all,... In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. There's a theme that many (not saying all) best-selling novels, of all genres, tend to follow for the openings on the first page. SLAP - something unusual/different is happening, has happened, or is being revealed/discussed. This book is trying to stand out from the other 1st pages of other books you are browsing. THEME - something is mentioned that gives a hint to the reader of what the book is about, its theme, or its setting QUIRKY/HUMOUR - A piece of dialogue or banter is quirky, witty, pithy, or displays humour that informs the reader that the dialogue will be strong and interesting. CHARACTER - The first piece of characterization of the protagonist is put forward for the reader to latch onto, to start the process of learning about and possibly liking the character enough to want to follow them on. If you get those in, then most people will find even a "talky" opening fine. For instance, I just helped my writing partner with her opening to a romance novel, and I used one of the current best-selling romance novels as an example. It started off talking about the worst possible subject - suicide. But because it wasn't the protagonist thinking or pondering over taking her own life, and it got in all the four points above, it worked brilliantly. (and as I say, so well it is (or was) #1 in the contemporary romance section bestsellers list.) So as long as you get 3 (hopefully) 4 of those central pillars into your opening few paragraphs, even a talky opening can be fine for a fantasy novel.
I like the consistent increase in the activity of the characters in the plot. So that everything was thought out and the story was started from afar.
I second/third that the location of the opening matters a whole lot less than its content. A battlefield/heist can be just as void of stakes, intrigue, and meaning as a tavern scene. The opening pace will set an expectation for the whole book, too. TV shows have this problem with those big-budget pilot episodes... The best approach is probably to build a library of intriguing openings and exhibit accordingly. "The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed." More of the opening here. Walking in a desert is just about the most boring thing I can imagine, but it works great for King.
