Instead of abstract speculation about how "story now" or "the standard narrativistic model" games are played, it might be better to consider actual examples of games written to be played in that style, or at actual play examples of play in that style.This is a bit vague. My understanding is that the GM is supposed to frame scenes that bring the player agendas into crisis, which isn't the same thing as framing things the players are interested in. The form of the crisis is the invention of the GM, not the player, and only loosely follows player interests in that the crisis formed attacks some part of the player's agenda. The fact that all scenes are supposed to place the player agenda into unavoidable crisis is the bit that I'm actually talking about. The defense that 'well, it's still the player's agenda' doesn't really defuse the point that the players lack agency to mitigate or choose the crisis they're forced into.
But anyway, even if one sticks to abstract description, Eero Tuovinen says
[the] gamemaster . . . frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go[es] where the action is) and provoke thematic moments (defined in narrativistic theory as moments of in-character action that carry weight as commentary on the game’s premise) by introducing complications.
And Ron Edwards says
Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing . . . [which] means . . . [d]eveloping the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all [and r]esolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists . . .
There is nothing here about "bringing the player's agenda into crisis", or "attacking" that agenda.
Both emphasise player decision-making ("in-character action", "decisions of the players of the protagonists") that is provoked by "complications"/"continued conflict" which speak to "dramatic needs"/"the engaging issue" and thereby yield "thematic moments"/"development of the isssue".
This could be about crisis, but need not be. Being a poor sorceror with only a limited ability to read magical auras, but in need of items to help free one's brother from demonic possession, means that the offer of an angel feather for sale provokes a choice for the PC, and thus a decision by the player. (In Edwards' terms, the "issue" is implicit but fairly straightforward: what will I risk, and what forces beyond my control will I treat with, in order to free my brother from the forces beyond his control?) But this is not a crisis. It doesn't attack the player's agenda (of having the PC find items to save his brother). It puts that agenda to the fore of play, however.
The first sentence rests on a false premise.Players in player-facing games cannot avoid or mitigate crisis by slowing down the pacing. Players in DM-facing games have less agency to introduce new fiction to overcome crisis. This is because they have more agency in pacing to mitigate and overcome crisis. Much of the discussion about resting in 5e is really about how much agency the players have over pacing and how it can trivialize many elements of the game that the DM uses to advance to crisis. So, this isn't something that's new, even if it's not normally discussed in terms like 'agency over pacing.'
Players in "player-facing" games cannot avoid dealing with their own agendas. But that does not seem to be a burden on agency!
And as [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has pointed out, resting in 5e seems to be about resources rather than pacing. It's true that the GM can use his/her control over "the plot", or framing, to create "story losses" (what AbdulAlhazred calls "plot costs") that the players might risk if they renew their resources - but the risking of story losses for resources doesn't really seem to be a strong or even distinctive form of player agency at all. Not particularly strong, because the bulk of the agency seems to be in the GM's hands; and not distinctive, because a player in a "player-facing" game can often spend a "move" or "turn" trying to establish an augment of some sort rather than actually tackling the situation head-on. (Even if there is no literal action economy, trying to establish the augment is an action that risks failure, which can then be narrated as consequences that consist in the situation getting worse for the PC, which - in terms of fictional content, if not the process of play that generates it - is analogous to the story loss of the GM-driven game.)